DECREE NISI GRANTED; ADULTERY HELD PROVED

Press, Volume XCIV, Issue 28019, 13 July 1956, Page 9

DECREE NISI GRANTED; ADULTERY HELD PROVED

SUPREME COURT

Arthur Lancedip Cyril Watkins, a wool.dealer, has peen granted a decree nisi on his petition for divorce from Ngaere Joan Watkms on the ground of : her adultry wit; his brother. Stanley . Percival Watkins! a plumber. • The decree was, granted by Mr Justice Adams in a reserved judgment - given in the Supreme Court yesterday. ~x he„ Pe l i ? i on' T !* ich w as opposed by Mrs Watkins and the co-respondent • was heard on June 13, 14, and 15* Arthur Watkins was represented by Mr J. B. Weil Mrs Watkins by Mr ’ A A and Danley VZatkins by . Mr P. H. T. Alpers. “Since the hearing I have read, and • endeavoured to examine with care , every portion of the evidence. But there are 65 pages of largely contra- • dictory testimony, and it is impossible . to review all the details that have affected my decision,’’ said his Honour • in the judgment. “The parties were married on April 6. 1935, petitioner being then 38 years of age and respondent 18. and they being already the parents of a child • born on May 2, 1933. It was oetitioner’s third marriage and respondent’s first. Three more children were born after • the marriage. “As originally presented, the petition charged adultery with co-resdond- • ent, petitioner’s brother, Stanley Percival Watkins, on December 8, 1954; but this was amended without objection . at the hearing so as to read “on or about December 7 or 8, 1954.’’ “It has become clear that petitioner’s witnesses were mistaken in alleging that the episode on which petitioner mainly relied had occurred on December 8, and that its true date was December 7; but, in any event, the evidence does not establish the direct fact of adultery on December 7, and the question is. not whether adultery was in fact committed on that particular occasion, but whether, from the nature of the episode in question and the surrounding circumstances, it is proper to infer that adultery was committed about that time. It is not necessary for a petitioner to prove the direct fact of adultery, or an act of adultery in time and place. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is necessary and this requires that the facts must not be reasonably capable of an innocent construction.

“The evidence does not prove an act of adultery, but in my opinion the intention was there, and I think the episode throws sufficient light on the relations between respondent and corespondent at that time, and justifies the Court in inferring that the association was an adulterous one, and that adultery was committed on or about that date,” said the judgment. “I realise that there is much in the evidence that I have not mentioned, and that many difficulties mav be suggested which I have not attempted to explain. But I hope and believe that I have considered them all. including such matters as co-respondent’s age, his health, the presence of the two daughters in the house, the conflict of testimony as to the identification of respondent and co-respondent in a front room of the house in Melrose street, the size and position of the bed in corespondent’s room, the fact that lights were left on in both bedrooms, and so on. It would take far too long to examine all those matters, and I con-

tent myself with the general statement that I find nothing in them, whether as affecting credibility of witnesses or otherwise, which leads me to . that the case’ for petitioner is sufficiently proved. “In the result, I hold that adultery is proved as alleged, and a decree nisi is granted to be moved absolute after three months.

“Counsel informed me that there is an arrangement under which a sum of £5O is to be treated as if paid into Court by way of security for respondent’s costs. The hearing was a prolonged one, and there will be an order for payment by petitioner to respondent of the sum of £5O for costs, and a further order directing corespondent to pay to petitioner his costs on the lower scale, with certificate for an extra allowance of £l5 15s for each of the two subsequent davs, and the above-mentioned sum of £5O made payable by petitioner to respondent for costs, and petitioner’s disbursements for fees of Court, fees of officers, expenses of service, witnesses’ expenses, and all other necessary payments as fixed by the Registrar,” said the judgment.