RUSSELL DIVORCE CASE

Evening Star, Issue 18649, 2 June 1924, Page 1

RUSSELL DIVORCE CASE

——- JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS. Press Association —By Telegraph—Copyright, LONDON, May 50. In giving judgment in the Russell case Lord Haldane (Lord High Chancellor) said he had formed a clear opinion that the husband’s evidence was not receivable, and should not have been allowed to go to the jury. There was no other .sufficient evidence of misconduct; therefore the verdict could not stand. If the child was socking a declaration of legitimacy it was against public policy to admit the parents’ evidence on the subject; therefore why should a different policy permit such evidence in divorce proceedings whim the child's legitimacy was also a vital issue ? Such a conclusion would be ludicrous and incongruous. The previous verdict would have the cxtraordL nary effect that the child may be illegitimate for the purpose of proving misconduct but legitimate for the purpose of succeeding to property or a title. Iron! Dunedin remarked that it mightlie said that the child’s legitimacy was secure in law ; but legitimacy in the eyes of the world perished with the verdict, and the verdict of the jury was not necessarily right. Lord Haldane said it was necessary tor counsel to consider whether lie desired to argue .if apart from the question of access there was evidence of the who’s misconduct.

Sir E. Marshall Hall suggested that tin; bettor course if the question for a new trial was not raised soon was that appellant should apply to have the petition dismissed.

Tlic court ordered appellant to pay costs on the issues on which she had failed.—A. and N.Z. Cable.