A DIVORCE PETITION

Evening Star, Issue 18729, 3 September 1924, Page 2

A DIVORCE PETITION

THE WIFE SUCCEEDS.

£Spjr,CJ*L to tbo ‘Star.’]

CHRISTCHURCH, September 2

The case in which Thyiv.a Louisa Gainpetitioned for divorce from Edward Fiancis Henry Gain, a Customs officer, on the grounds of misconduct, with an unknown woman, was concluded to-day, a dence nisi being granted. Mr \V. .1, Hunter appeared for the petitioner, and Messrs W. J. Gresson and 0. S. Thomas for the respondent. In his address to the Jury Mr Thomas said the question at issue was: Hid Gain rrmmit adultery, and, if so, did Minins, the inquiry agent, bring it. about by a trick? It was not. disputed that Gain went into the park. If the waitress Harvey told the truth, then Alr.s Gain and Minins deliberately lied. “ Alarms may gel. away with these things sometimes,” said Air Thomas, “ but 1 venture to suggest that be will not get away with it this time." The whole thing was a trap, a, fake, and a. try-on worked by the schemer A limns, who was paid for the job, a.nd who was on tho job all the time. The Jaw said that if a woman went out for a divorce by (■.(inspiring to get her husband caught by an agent, then the, petition could not be granted. Air linnlcr, in his address, said that (An in’s,version was simply a. “ penny dreadful ” story of a brave Customs officer doing liis duty. Respondent was a most, unsatisfactory witness. Cain’s own story was strong evidence for the petitioner that ho committed adultery. The defence had stated that Cain did not commit adultery, or, if he did, that it was connived at by Miin-ns. This was a dear indication that the case for tho defence had broken down. It was evident that witnesses wore to have been called to show connivance; yet they were not called. The) jury had been told in the plainest possible terms that Alunns was a perjurer, but if Alunns had gone in for anything of that sort ho would be guilty of a foolish and serious criminal action.

His _ Honor said that connivance was providing means for and inducing the respondent to commit adultery, but, there was little indication in that direction in tlie case in hand. Tho duty of tho jury was to weigh the evidence of all the witnesses. When a person was paid to collect, evidence, such as an inquiry agent, then .that evidence should be looked into a little narrowly. Of course, the whole circumstances must be taken into cousider.ation. Alunns had been very strongly attacked in the proceedings, and it had l been said tliat ho was a perjurer; but the essential evidence of Mnnns was corroborated by Airs Gain, if the latter was telling the truth. The jury retired at 3.50 p.m., and returned at 4.55 with answers to the questions ns follows;—(1) Did respondent commit adultery with a woman unknown to petitioner? Yes. (3) Did respondent commit adultery with. Rioda Gates? No, (3) If Hie answer to the other question is in tho affirmative, was tho adultery connived or brought about by tho connivance of petitioner? No. The decree nisi was granted, to bo made absolute in three months, petitioner to have the custody of tho child. Costs on the highest scale wore awarded against the respondent.