Supreme Court Adultery Held Not Proven; Petition Dismissed

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29334, 13 October 1960, Page 11

Supreme Court Adultery Held Not Proven; Petition Dismissed

If he had accepted the evidence of George Joseph Hart, a private inquiry agent, he would have found that adultery had been committed. But he was not satisfied that what Hart told the Court was correct, said Mr Justice Richmond in dismissing a petition for divorce in the Supreme Court yesterday. His Honour was giving oral judgment in the petition by Leonard Charles Breakwell, a builder, against Rhoda Grace Breakwell on ground of her alleged adultery. The name of the man named as co-respondent was struck out, he having died since the filing of the petition. The hearing of the petition began on Monday afternoon. Mr P. H. T. Alpers appeared for Breakwell and Mr R. A. Young for Rhoda Grace Breakwell who denied the allegations of her adultery. His Honour gave his judgment before the parties and witness. He said that he had given counsel great latitude in bringing evidence of the matrimonial history of Breakwell and Mrs Breakwell so that the parties would not feel he had excluded any evidence they thought had a bearing on the petition. However, the soli issue he had to determine, his Honour continued, was whether or not adultery had been committed by Mrs Breakwell and the co-respondent on the night at May 9-10, 1959. at Ashburton. His Honour outlined the welldefined principles in waich he should approach the answer to this question. It was not expected, in general, that there would be witnesses who had caught the parties in the act of adultery but nevertheless the evidence had to be such that the only reasonable inference to be drawn from it was that adultery had taken place. Suspicion and mere probability were not enough.

It would have been surprising if Mrs Breakwell and the corespondent had not developed deep feelings of affection when he helped her after she bad been left by Breakwell, and later separated, with the three children. He was impressed with the moderate tone of letters written by Mrs Breakwell to the corespondent and felt that the corespondent had acted with restraint.

Referring to the events of the night of May 9-10, bis Honour said there were major discrepancies between the evidence of Breakwell and Hart as to what occurred. “If I were to accept the evi-

dence of Mr Hart I would have found adultery had been committed, but I am not satisfied that what he told the Court is correct.” It was clear that Breakwell had as good as. if t not better, chance of seeing through the window as Hart did but Hart’s evidence went a lot further than Breakwell’s.

“There are so many discrepancies between Hart’s and Breakwell’s views that I feel unable to rely on the evidence of one or the other or both,” said his Honour after reviewing their evidence. His Honour said the Court was not obliged to express any view on the question of inducement. The petition would be dismissed and costs, on the higher scale, awarded to Mrs Breakwell. Possession Order Revoked An appeal by Peter Pavlides, a fishmonger, against a Magistrate’s order giving possession of a shop at 29 Seaview road, New Brighton, to Mako Investments, Ltd., a property owning company; has been allowed by Mr Justice Haslam. At the hearing in the Supreme Court on September 27, Mr C. M. Roper appeared for Pavlidea and Mr W. F. Brown for Mako Investments. Ltd. His Honour, after reviewing the history of the lease, sub-lease, and renewals, found that Mako Investments, Ltd., had granted a new lease, direct to Pavlides as a fresh lease, as from September I, 1956. He awarded £26 5s costs to Pavlides and ordered that judgment be entered for Pavlides in the Magistrate’s Court. DECREE NISI GRANTED A decree nisi was granted by Mr Justice Richmond in the Supreme Court yesterday to Lois Jessie Scott in her petition for divorce from George Ivan Phillip Scott on the ground of bis adultery. Mr B. G. Dingwall appeared for Lois Scott. Mr B. J. Drake was granted leave of the Court to withdraw from the suit after he said he had been instructed by Scott, now living in Brisbane, that he did not wish to offer evidence on his defence filed in answer to the petition.