Supreme Court PETITION FOR DIVORCE

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 29001, 16 September 1959, Page 21

Supreme Court PETITION FOR DIVORCE

Adultery Held Not Proved Saying that there was “the gravest suspicion” of the bona fides of the petitioner, and that the petitioner’s brother had deliberately given false evidence, Mr Justice Henry dismissed in the Supreme Court yesterday a divorce petition by Alfred Charles Dick, assistant works manager of an engineering company, against his wife. Judith Esme Dick. The petition was on the ground of her alleged adultery with lan Ristoff. a shop assistant, on July 20, 1958. Mrs Dick, for whom Mr J. G. Leggat appeared, denied that adultery had occurred. Adultery was also denied by Ristoff, for whom Mr B. McClelland appeared. The petitioner, represented by Mr P. H. T. Alpers, was ordered to pay both the respondent’s and co-respondent’s costs, plus witness expenses and Court disbursement.

The hearing had been continued from Monday. In summing up, Mr Justice Henry said that adultery was alleged on one specific occasion—in the early, hours of July 20, 1958, in a motorcar drawn up in Clarence road. Riccarton. It was freely admitted that while in the car there had been some intimacy between Mrs Dick and Ristoff in the nature of kissing and cuddling, said his Honour. But he had to consider whether it had been proved to have continued to the state where sexual intercourse took place. That matter turned largely on credibility, said his Honour. “On the question of credibility, I have formed a clear opinion that I have to accept the explanations and denials of adultery of the respondent and corespondent,” his Honour said. Evidence Rejected The evidence given by Thomas Bruce Dick, a farmer, of Kimbell, near Fairlie, and a brother of the petitioner, he rejected entirely, not only as being unsatisfactory, but deliberately false, his Honour said. Further evidence given for the petitioner by Leslie Walter Welsh, a contractor, of Fairlie, would, if accepted, prove that adultery had taken place, said his Honour. But there was no support for that evidence, and it was unsatisfactory in some details. “I find it almost impossible to believe that if Welsh had found the respondent and co-respondent in a position where the proper inference is adultery, he would fail to call up the petitioner’s brother. It leaves me with a feeling of uncertainty, of unreliability, and of unreality as to the situation,” his Honour said. “I refuse to accept his explanation that he was embarrassed, and turned away. The natural reaction would be to call the brother across.”

For some time before the alleged adultery, Mrs Dick had been separated from her husband, his Honour said. She seemed to have been a wife who lightly took her obligations under the marriage bond. She had left her husband and child, and it was clear from her admissions that she was associating with a number of men. and that she was intending “to have a good time.” The petitioner had first been prepared to enter into a collusive arrangement with her, but the petitioner later asked his brother to watch her, his Honour said. The brother’s aid had quite definitely been enlisted to get evidence of an act of adultery. “I find that the petitioner had asked his brother to watch his wife at or about the time the petitioner had entered into an illicit arrangement with his housekeeper and wanted evidence to enable him to regularise his position with her,” his Honour said.

“There is the gravest suspicion of the bona fides of the petitioner, and his brother has deliberately given false evidence,” said his Honour, dismissing the petition.