COLLUSION ALLEGED

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 159, 31 March 1920, Page 7

COLLUSION ALLEGED

AUCKLAND DIVORCE PETITIONS

THE CROWN INTERVENES

A proceeding not commonly experienced in law in New Zealand was adopted at tlio Auckland Divorce Court on Saturday morning, reports the "Herajd," when the Solicitor-General, represented by the Hon. .T. A. Tole, K.C., asked for an adjournment of the hearing of four petitions for divorce to enable further inquiry to be made into the circumstances connected with the, cases. The petitions in question were to have beep presented to the Court last year. In each case adultery was the ground of tho petition. Tho" uespective respondents were stated to have made statements confessing their guilt, but refused to give the name of the co-respondents. These circumstances were regarded by the authorities as unusual, and the SoiioitorGoneral intervened.

-The four suits -were between the following parties, the name of the petitioner being driven first in each case:— Samuel Henry Gill and Jessie Lydia Gill: Fred. Charles Mnckadam and Doris Marjorie Mackadam; George Handel RatclilTe and 1 Jfargarot Evelyn Ratcliire; and Arthur Cecil Jamieson and Eva Laura Jamieson.

Mr. Tole moved that the heaving of the petitions be adjourned until the next civil sittings of tho Court, in Mav. Hr. R. A. Singer represented the petitioners. The erounds of the. motion were that the Solicitor-General had intervened 1 and had filed a plea denying the adultery alleged in the petitions, and allegimr collision and connivance between the. parties; and that it was necessary and expedient in the public interest that the he.ving be adjourned. The substance of Mr. Tole's arguments in favour of tlie adjournment we* contained in an affidavit. He stated that the respondents in the suits were alleged to have mado confessions or admissions of adultery, but so far the efforts to trace the whereabouts of two of the respondents had been ineffectual. The alleged confessions or admissions all took place before the petitions were filed, am) ill only one ease had appearance for or by the respondent been entered. In one suit the respondent had stated that the co-respondent was unknown to her. In reply, Mr. Singer objected very strongly to tho suggestions of collusion and connivance. He contended there could be no collusion where damages were claimed. He also complained of the great delay ivliinh was bein? caused, and said he had eivon Jfr. Tole every assistance in 'nvestigat.ing the cases. He pointed out that each case 'harl separate circumstances, and there could not V collusion, seeing that each respondent was represented by an independent solicitor. Counsel asked His Honour to order tho cases to be heard before a Judee alone.

His Honour agreed to this course. and sai'd ifchat in view of the SolicitorGeneral's allegations as to collusion it would be better for all parties if plontv of time was given for investigation. If. the parties were put to expense which they would not otherwise have been put, hy .reason of the intervention of the Solicitor-General, then the latter would 110 doubt pay those costs, if his allegations proved without foundation.

His Honour granted t'bc adjournment until May, and reserved the question of costs. S