“BY REQUEST”

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 134, 2 March 1922, Page 6

“BY REQUEST”

WOMAN INTERVENES IN DIVORCE ACTION MAKES HERSELF THE CO-RESPONDENT The second case of its kind in the legal history of the Empire, and the first in New Zealand (according to counsel engaged), was heard by Mr. Justice Hosking and a jury of twelve in the Supreme Court yesterday. It was a divorce action, in which a woman came forward as co-respondent, in order "to vindicate. her honour." An accusation of adultery was made against her by the wife of the respondent. The petitioner was Florence Lucilla Mills (represented by Mr. T. M. Wilford), and Adam John Mills, electrical brush manufacturer (Mr. Kennedy) was the respondent. The woman who had been accused of committing adultery with Mills, Mrs. Agnes Jackson (Mr. O. C. Mazengarb) intervened on her own behalf, desiring to vindicate her honour. She was accorded every right of procedure, including the challenge right during the empanelling of the jury. Power te intervene is given by section 24 Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act. The present case, it was said, was the only one that had ever come before a New Zealand Supreme Court, and only one such case had been heard in England., It was the leading case, Bell v. Bell, and in it tho alleged adulteress was made a co-respondent on her own application. Similar procedure was followed in the present case. Mrs. Jackson had applied in Chambers te be allowed 'to intervene, and appeared in court yesterday. Spectators were excluded by His Honour’s order. In his address to the jury, counsel alleged that Mrs. Jackson was in love with Mills, and had decided to have him at all costs.' Mills had been watched by private detectives. The petitioner was married to' her husband on October 2, 1912, at St. Thomas’s Church, Newtown. There was one child of the marriage, a girl, born on November 17,' 1916. It was alleged that adultery had taken place at the Zig-Zag, near Hall Street. A private detective (a woman) gave evidence regarding the alleged adultery on November 30 last. In answer to Mr. Mazengarb’s cross-examination, witness said she was positive as to the identity of the woman she had seen in company with the respondent. She was Mrs. Jackson.

Evidence was given by the petitioner, who said that her husband had left her in April last. He had not returned. Twice before he had left her, but she had persuaded him to return for the sake of the child. Later she had taken action for a separation on the ground of habitual drunkenness and failure to maintain.

The respondent denied guilt, and When cross-examined explained that a certain letter sent by Mrs. Jackson to him was not written with any but the best intent.

The co-respondent also denied guilt. She said she had not been on, tho “Zig-Zag” on the night in question. She had come to the court only to protect and vindicate her honour. She lived in Thorndon, and had no object ih ever going to Newtown, where the petitioner alleged the adultery had taken place. Shq. had only seen the respondent twice in seven years. Ths case will be continued at 9.30 a.m. to-day, when His Honour will sum up.