Supreme Court Divorce Petition Against Co-respondent Dismissed

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29335, 14 October 1960, Page 9

Supreme Court Divorce Petition Against Co-respondent Dismissed

A petition against Lawrence Paul Gemmell, brought by Ralph t Thomas Greer, alleging Gemmell , had committed adultery with t Greer’s wife, Ellen Joyce Greer, ; was dismissed by Mr Justice f Richmond in the Supreme Court yesterday. His Honour granted Greer, a j patrol officer, a decree nisi in , divorce on the ground of his ' wife’s adultery. His Honour . fpund that Ellen Joyce Greer had ; committed adultery but held that it was not proven that Gemmell, . a 26-year-old chauffeur, had committed adultery with her. Mr B. J. Drake appeared for Greer, Mr H. S. Thomas for Ellen : Joyce Greer, and Mr B. S. Me- I Laughlin for Gemmell. 1 At the start of the hearing. Mr ' Thomas said that Ellen Joyce i Greer did not file an answer to s the petition. To his Honour, Mr i Thomas said he was. in effect, 1 holding a watching brief. At the conclusion of the evi- ' dence for the petitioner, Mr McLaughlin submitted that Gemmell, as the alleged co-respon- i dent, had no case to answer. i He asked that the Court dismiss Gemmell from the petition under section 17, sub-section 2. of the Divorce and Matrimonial 1 Causes Act on grounds that there was insufficient evidence. “It is one of the weakest cases of adultery ever to come before this Court,” counsel said. His Honour said that a child had been born to Mrs Greer and money had been paid to her (obviously on the basis that the child was illegitimate) and the corespondent, Gemmell, had remained silent when it was said that he could have been the 1 father of the child. This was the evidence for the petitioner, said his Honour, and there could be an inference from that evidence that adultery had been committed by Mrs Greer and Gemmell. “Many Suppositions” Mr McLaughlin submitted there were too many suppositions in the petitioner’s evidence. Mrs Greer and Gemmell had been seen dancing together by Greer but his evidence was uncorroborated. A conversation, in which Gemmell made no admission whatsoever in November, 1958. was no proof of adultery between Gemmell and Mrs Greer in December, 1957. His Honour ruled that Gemmell had a case to answer. He said that his ruling did not mean in any way that the Court had reached any decision as to the outcome of the case. After evidence for the co-re-spondent had been called. Mr McLaughlin submitted there was no evidence at all that Gemmell had committed adultery. “I submit that Gemmell, aged 24 when the affiliation proceedings were launched against him, was picked out as a target, or as a dupe in these proceedings because he was known to be of a timid nature.” said counsel.

“I submit Mrs Greer had cer- I tainly formed that impression I when she saw fit to issue affilia- I tion proceedings against Gemmell j and that Greer had probably | formed that impression. “The only question is that of I the £5O paid to Mrs Greer and it ] is clear that Gemmell's father I paid that sum against Gemmell's I wishes. Gemmell wae prepared to defend the affiliation proceedings,” counsel concluded, asking that Gemmell be dismissed from the petition. "Court Order” Mr Drake submitted that before a petitioner could proceed on grounds of adultery without I naming a co-respondent, the peti- I tioner had to obtain a Court order granting permission to do so. He submitted that, with the evidence available to the petitioner in this case, no Court order would have been given. This was the reason why Gemmell had been named as co-respondent. His Honour: I am not frightfully concerned as to wlhy it was done. Gemmell and his father were unreliable witnesses, as their conflicting evidence showed, Mr Drake submitted. “The co-respondent could have reasonably been expected to make a forthright denial when practically accused of being the father of Mrs Greer’s child,” counsel said, submitting that Gemmell’s silence, in the circumstances, should be construed by the Court as an admission. Court’s Views Mere suspicion, or even a balance of probabilities, was not enough for proof of adultery. It must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, said his Honour. He was not satisfied with the proof and proposed to dismiss the petition against the co-respondent. There was nothing sinister in the evidence about the dances and he was satisfied with Gemmell’s explanation of how he came to be dancing with Mrs Greer and took her to one dance. The payment of £5O to Mrs Greer was made by Gemmell’s father and Gemmell and his father . agreed it was done against Gemmell’s wishes. He had no reason to doubt Gemmell’s father’s explanation of why he paid the money, his Honour continued. He thought it a very human thing to do. whether it was wise or unwise. ■- ' His Honour said he was not prepared in the circumstances to regard Gemmell’s silence as an 1 admission on his part, particu- t larly in regard to the retiring * nature of Gemmell. “I am very far from being sat- 1 isfied that Gemmell committed ( adultery with Mrs Greer, although 1 I am satisfied that Mrs Greer com- * mitted adultery,” his Honour ‘ concluded. ? His Honour, after submissions J by Mr Drake that Gemmell, by " his silence when confronted by r Greer, had brought on himself i being named as co-respondent, did I

not award costs to Gemmell, as corespondent, against Greer, as petitioner.