SUPREME COURT Contested Divorce Action

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31727, 10 July 1968, Page 7

SUPREME COURT Contested Divorce Action

Counsel for respondent and co-respondent in a contested action for divorce submitted in the Supreme Court yesterday that their sworn denials that adultery had occurred between them were entitled to be set strongly against evidence for the petitioner which sought to establish adultery by inference from the facts. ' The petitioner is Joy May Williams (Mr P. H. T. Alpers) who seeks divorce from her husband, Lloyd Gordon Williams, a motor-vehicle dealer (Mr B. J. Drake), alleging bis adultery with a woman—whose name has, in the interim, been suppressed—on January 20-21 last. The co-respondent is represented by Mr R. L. Kerr. Evidence in denial of the allegation of adultery was given by both respondent and co-respondent yesterday, after which Mr Justice Macarthur

was addressed by counsel, and reserved decision on their submissions. The case will continue this afternoon, when Mr Kerr will make further legal submissions concerning the suppression of the co-respondent’s name. Both Mr Drake end Mr Kerr, in their submissions yesterday, said that the petitioner, in seeking to establish adultery by inference from the facts, must also bring evidence of inclination or passion to commit adultery, and on that aspect had totally failed, they submitted. Mr Alpers, in reply, submitted that the ease stood against a certain background, and that it would be hard to imagine a greater opportunity for respondent and eo-respon-dent to have committed adultery than the circumstances described in the evidence.