PETITION IN DIVORCE

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31089, 18 June 1966, Page 24

PETITION IN DIVORCE

Proof Found Inadequate While accepting the evidence of Willem Donk, a painter, in a divorce suit against his wife, Mr Justice Macarthur held in the Supreme Court yesterday that the evidence did not go far enough to establish adultery, as alleged and dismissed the petition. His Honour said that he had found the respondent in the suit, Maria Geertruida Donk, and the co-respondent, Harold Joseph Voice, a poultry farmer, quite unreliable in-their evidence on the vital matter of the alleged adultery and noted that they had “cut: a very poor figure” in cross-, examination. On the other hand, while there had been much evidence; of sexual abnormality in the behaviour of the Donk couple, and an attempt to make much from it against the petitioner, the latter had impressed as being an essentially truthful witness, and was unshaken in cross-examination. But from what Donk claimed to have seen when he broke a window of his wife’s bedroom, there were two possible inferences, said his Honour—that Intercourse between the respondent and co-respon-dent was just about to take place, or had just taken place. Mr A. D. Holland, for the petitioner, had submitted that the denial of the situation by the respondent and co-respon-dent, being rejected, could be used as an inference that adultery had just taken place said his Honour.

But after very careful consideration, his Honour said, he was not prepared to draw that inference. The proof of adultery not being clear, the petitioner had failed to establish his case, and his suit must be dismissed. The respondent was represented by Mr R. G. Blunt, and the co-respondent by Mr G. S. Brockett