KING V. KING AND HINTON

Evening Star, Issue 15892, 26 August 1915, Page 2

KING V. KING AND HINTON

Suit for divorce, brought by Alexander Campbell King against Helen Anno King and John Howard Hinton. Mr Scurr for the husband, Mr Bedford for the wife, Mr W. C. .MacGregor, K.C., for the corespondent. ■ ■ ■ ■ . . r -*-Ee .trial was continued before Mr Justice Sim yesterday afternoon. After Mrs Hinton had given evidence Mr MacGregor called and examined Albert Hurd, Wm. Bryant, Francis Joseph Campbell, Robert Henry Ledlie, Charles Beeby, and Francis John Bloy, these witnesses being questioned as to Hinton’s movements on given dates. Richard Goldsberry, foreman drainer, said that Le Comte introduced Cha-s. Hayward as a man who had been discharged from the corporation, and hsked witness to give him a job. - His Honor said that the matter concerning which this witness was being examined was irrelevant. Mr ’MacGregor said he was leading up to the statement that both Le Comte: and Hayward told Goldsberry that they - had been offered a sum of money to give evidence. - His Honor said that to admit even that was against the authorities. .Learned counsel addressed the Court, and His Honor straightway gave judgment. He said that petitioner alleged misconduct during the period between 7th November, 1914, and the 9th March last. It was established'clearly that the Court was not entitled to proceed on mere suspicion; the evidence must be such as to be incompatible with the innocence of the parties. The question was whether petitioner hajl made out clearly that respondent and co-respondent had been guilty of misconduct, and in dealing with that question it was important to bear in mind what appeared to be the relations between the parties at an earlier period. In regard to that the Court had the letter written by co-respondent in May, 1911, and the evidence given by Mrs. MTvor. This letter had been shown "by Mrs MTvor to Mrs King, and Mrs King accepted it as a correct statement of the relations between Mrs King and Hinton. But even supposing that this was evidence of misconduct at the time referred to, it did not follow that there was misconduct later. The letter was practically a confession, that Mrs King and Hinton were lovers, and, .looking at that letter, it seemed likely that there would be familiar relations between them. It seemed to him (His Honor) that the story told by Mrs MTvor was quite reasonable—(that the conduct which she described was what would bo expected from persons in the position in which Hinton said they were. Looking at the terms of the letter, it seemed highly probable that what _ she described did take place. He did not see any reason for discrediting Mrs MTver's evidence. Assuming, however, that Mrs MTvor’s evidence was proved to be true, and taking the evidence at its face value, ho did not know that that evidence would bo sufficient to justify the finding of grave misconduct at the period relied on. No doubt, it would’ create very strong suspicion. If he had to decide definitely whether there had been improper intercourse at that period, he would hesitate to say that it had been proved. Then they had the fact that a separation took place in May, 1914, between petitioner and his wife, the term of separation being for 12 months from the date of the agreement. Petitioner, however, returned in August, and his wife had agreed to receive him back. The fact that she was willing to receive him back was certainly a point strongly in her favor, as negativing the idea that there was gross impropriety between Mrs King and Hinton at that time. If there had been, the last person she would want back in her house would be her husband. It went to show that if there had been improper relationship it had come to an end by that time. Then the petitioner continued to live with his wife until April 7 of this year. The evidence in support of the allegation relied on by the petitioner was exceedingly slight, and failed to establish misconduct.. This evidence was nothing like so strong as the evidence of the earlier period. The identification bv the corporation laborers was very unsatisfactory. He did not suppose thatthese men were swearing what was not true. Even supposing it to be true, the mere fact that these persons were seen walking on the Town Belt was not evidence of wrong doing.' Taking the most favorable view possible, petitioner had failed to discharge the onus that was upon him as to the period mentioned in the petition, and the petition would be dismissed. Mr Bedford applied for the wife’s costs in the usual way, and costs were grantee! on the highest scale. His Honor asked Mr MacGregor if he asked for the co-respondent’s costs. Mr MacGregor: I suppose I may as well, but I don't expect to get anything. His Honor made a similar order in regard to the co-respondent’s costs. The Court rose at 4.30.