MISCONDUCT PROVED

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 196, 16 May 1936, Page 21

MISCONDUCT PROVED

£5OO Damages Against Co-respondent The hearing of the defended divorce suit in which Thomas Bradley, ot Wellington, labourer (Mr. J. D. Willis) petitioned for a dissolution of his marriage with Constance Margaret Bradley (Mr. J. M. Laing) on the ground of misconduct, D. P. Cameron, of Masterton, restaurant proprietor (Mr. C. C. Marsack, Masterton) being cited as corespondent, was concluded in the Supreme Court at Wellington yesterday before the acting-Chief Justice (Mr. Justice Reed) and a jury. Petitioner claimed £5OO damages from the co-responclent. Evidence was given by respondent to show that she had been ill-treated by her husband from time to time. She denied petitioner’s allegations of misconduct. Three issues were put to the jury by his Honour. -The first was: Did the respondent commit adultery .with the co-respondent?; the second, did the corespondent commit adultery with the respondent?; and the third related to damages. The jury retired at 3.25 p.m. and returned at 3.50 p.m. with an affirmative answer to the first two issues and an assessment of damages for the full amount. The jury recommended that, as far as possible, the sum be used entirely for the children. His Honour granted a decree nisi to be moved absolute at the expiration of three months and awarded petitioner £aoo damages against the co-respondent. Petitioner was granted interim custody of the four children of the marriage. Costs of petitioner and respondent on the higher scale, with witnesses’ expenses and disbursements were allowed against the co-respondent. The sum of £lO/10/- each was allowed counsel for the petitioner and for the respondent for the second day.