Proof Needed In Divorce Actions

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29797, 13 April 1962, Page 12

Proof Needed In Divorce Actions

(New Zealand Press Association)

AUCKLAND, April 12. Auckland Judges would not grant a divorce decree on grounds of adultery based on a mere admission produced on behalf of the petitioner, Mr Justice Turner said in the Supreme Court today. He made the comment when he adjourned for further evidence a petition by Shirley Alma Bloxham against William Alton Bloxham on the grounds of his alleged adultery.

After a solicitor produced an admission which he said had been made to him by the respondent, his Honour told counsel for the petitioner, Mr A. Gray, that he wanted to hear the evidence of the adultery. Mr Gray said he had no other evidence to offer.

Adjourning the petition for further evidence, his Honour said that, in general, the Court would find adultery proved on evidence of admission only in the rarest cases. His Honour said he relied upon a case which came before a former Chief Justice, the late Sir Michael Myers, who had expressed a ruling similar to his own. In Auckland, said his Honour, the judges had become quite resolute. Cases of admissions only were so prone to be collusive and faked that judges relied on admissions only when forced to. and they required the most rigorous investigation before considering the case. His Honour said that there was recently a case in Auckland in which the late Mr Justice Shorland had acted upon an admission. Not long after the decree nisi had been granted, but before a decree absolute had been made, the respondent

had been killed in an accident. The respondent’s wife went into the witness box in the Compensation Court and denied adultery had taken place. That had resulted in a considerable stiffening of the attitude of the judges and decrees would not be granted in these circumstances unless it could be shown it was positively impossible to find out more about the alleged adultery.