UNUSUAL DIVORCE CASE

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 135, 3 March 1922, Page 8

UNUSUAL DIVORCE CASE

WOMAN MAKES HERSELF CO-RESPONDENT VERDICT AGAINST THE PETITIONER The hearing of the divorce case, Florence Lucilla Mills v. Adam John Mills, electrical brush manufacturer, in which Agnes Watson Jackson was joined as co-respondent on her own application, wa.s concluded in the Supreme Court yesterday. Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared for the petitioner, Mr. Kennedy for the respondent, and Mr. O. C. Mazengarb for the co-respondent, who intervened on her own behalf in order to vindicate her honour. ... His Honour, Mr. Justice Hoskmg, in summing up, said that the principal evidence in the case was that of a paid agent employed to obtain the divorce. The old ecclesiastical courts which used to try these cases looked upon such evidence with supreme disfavour. He did not suggest that the evidence in this case was unreliable, hut they had at legist to credit the people used- as trackers with enthusiasm to prove to their employers that they could do good work. The woman detective employed by the inquiry agency, though she stated in her evidence that she had closely followed the respondent and co-respondent, was unable to give particulars as to outward identity, and could not tell what kind of costume the co-respondent was wearing. They had a point-blank denial regarding every article of dress the detective had mentioned. If they accepted Mrs. Jackson’s statement regarding her clothing, they must regard the detective’s statement with great caution. With regard to the letter which had been written seven years ago, they had to consider whether this had any bearing on the case. Jhey had no' evidence that during the intervening seven years the/ responden was misconducting himself with Mrs. Jackson or any other woman. The petitioner asked them to believe that thi. was an old intimacy between Mills and Mrs. Jackson, which had been lv renewed. It was clear that the best o'f relations had not existed between petitioner and respondent, and the lor Jner had clearly kept every piece of evidence against her husband. It Mas, Iherefore, unlikely that any lengthy intimacy, could have exls W.,^ w ®f" Mills ancl Mrs. Jackson without the petitioner being aware of it. H was for the jury to say whether the re spondent and co-respondent had committed adulterv. A P e '° u ’ la .J about divorce law was that if a man was joined as co-respondent he was brought into the case, but in the case of a woman being joined asco-respon-dent she did not come in nt all. The petitioner had not pinned down .the respondent, to definite dates until within eight or ten days of the case coming on. The co-respondent had only got to hear of it at a late hour, and had made application to be joined as co-respondent ih order to deny the aspersions which had been made upon he 'rhe b ?urv retired at 11 o’clock, and returned at 12.15, with a “That the respondent did not commit adultery with the co-respondent, and neither' did the co-respondent commit adultery with the respondent. Mr. iVilfoiA said he would move for a fresh trial on the ground of misdirection to the jury. His Honour: Did you ask me to correct the misdirection at the time.. Mr Wilford: No; I have been thinking over the summing up since the ju7v retired, and 1 have decided to move for a new trial on three counts of misdirection to the jury. His Honour: This does not merest me in the least, nor does it afiect the Cl Mr. Wilford': Not until I file my "’Mr”’ Kennedy applied for costs against the petitioner, who. he pointed out was a person of considerable private estate. He also asked for costs for the intervener. • His Honour said the question ot costs would be taken in Chambers on a date to he fixed)