Supreme Court £500 DAMAGES TO HUSBAND

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 29024, 13 October 1959, Page 25

Supreme Court £500 DAMAGES TO HUSBAND

Award In Action For Divorce

In a defended action for divorce and damages on the ground _of adultery a Supreme Court jury yesterday awarded £5OO to the petitioner against the co-respondent.

The petitioner, Roy Joseph Searle, a panelbeater, had claimed £2OOO damages, alleging that the co-respondent, Peter Lucas, a contractor, of Greymouth. had committed adultery with his wife, Ada Maria Searle, on May 30, 1959, and was the cause of the break-up of the marriage.

Mr A. D. Holland appeared for Searle and Mr C. R. McGinley, of Greymouth, for Lucas.

The jury reached its verdict after deliberating for half an hour. A decree nisi was granted to Searle by Mr Justice Hutchison.

Summing up, his Honour said the questions for the jury to decide were whether the corespondent had committed adultery with the respondent. If so what damages, if any, should be awarded. On the evidence there would be no doubt that adultery was committed.

The £2OOO claimed was a “very large sum indeed” for a case of this kind, his Honour said.

“The granting of damages in a case like this is not punitive; it is not a fine on the corespondent for committing adultery with the petitioner’s wife,” he told the jury.

“The purpose of awarding damages is compensation only. You are to assess what is proper compensation on the basis of the wife’s value to the petitioner and on the injury caused to him.”

This was a war marriage in Italy between a New Zealand soldier and a young Italian girl of 18 years, said his Honour. One child was born three or four months after the marriage and another about two years later. There was evidence that the wife had received presents from Lucas, who had admitted having intercourse with her in 1948. A reconciliation was arranged at a family meeting and the wife and Lucas undertook not to see each other again. It had been suggested that the marriage virtually came to an end in January, 1958, when the wife returned from a trip to Italy, said his Honour. The wife would not occupy the same room as her husband. She wanted the house and the children, and wanted him out of the house.

“You may ask what was the wife’s value to the petitioner after that date,” he added. It was claimed by Searle, however, that Lucas had brought about the break-up of the marriage at that time.

It would not be right to assess the wife's value solely by the cost to the petitioner of maintaining a housekeeper for four years and a half, said his Honour.