MISCONDUCT PROVED

Evening Star, Issue 21784, 28 July 1934, Page 17

MISCONDUCT PROVED

HUSBAND’S PETITION SUCCEEDS DEFENDED DIVORCE CASE For the greater part of yesterday a jury was engaged in the Supreme Court in hearing tne petition brought by Eric Douglas Yorston for a divorce from Rose Yorston on the ground of misconduct, Thomas Edward Wright - being cited as co-respondent. Mr C. J. L. White appeared for the petitioner, and Air "E. J. Anderson for the respondent and co-respondent. Giving evidence yesterday afternoon, the respondent said that she told her husband 'of her appointment with Wright for October 18 immediately after she made it. She admitted that she made a statement confessing adultery with Sinclair, stating that Yorston tojd her that he would use it to obtain £I,OOO damages from Sinclair and obtain a divorce. After he had got the money he would pay off his debts and they could live together again. In reply to Mr White, the respondent stated that the confession that she made with respect to Sinclair was hot true. So you deliberately lent yourself as a party to a conspiracy?—The witness’s reply was inaudible; It was a put-up job?,—He askedjjue to do it.

You were getting nothing out of it but were willing to brand yourself as an adultress.—Again the reply was inaudible. •

Was it not strange that you should do this after having beeWwith Wright on the Wednesday night ?'—Yes. And the reason why you agreed to this outrageous - admission was to protect Wright?—He said he was not going to have anything to do with Wright. o _ Asked why she went out with Wright, the respondent stated that as her husband was going, out with Miss Wright she saw no harm in Wright and herself going out together. She admitted that , she had said in- the lower court that she met Wright to get one back on her husband.

Air White: Would that not be playing into his hands? Witness: I suppose it would; The respondent admitted that Wright put his arm around her in the willows. She first denied that Wright had kissed her, but later admitted that he did.

The co-respondent admitted that he had put his arm round the respondent and kissed her on two or three occasions. , He saw no harm in meeting a married woman. Airs Yorston said that Yorston would not care.

Mr White: Why did ■ you put your arm around her?—l suppose the closer you are the warmer you are,. (Laughter.) , .

What did you kiss bet for?—That would not be much good for heat-gen-erating purposes.—lt was just for fun.Wright denied that he offered money to Torsion. He admitted asking YorBtan to drop the case. Addressing the jury, Mr Anderson, said the question was whether, from the facts, the inference could clearly be drawn that adultery was committed, it was not the duty of the jury to investigate the morals of the position. Counsel suggested that the petitioner’s conduct, especially in obtaining a confession with respect to Sinclair, showed that he had not been sure of what he had'seen. While stupid nonsense went on between a married woman and a single man—and counsel must agree that it was most improper—it was, he suggested, a long way short of adultery. Mr 'White said petitioner was not mercenary, and asked for no damages for his wife’s shame. The jury should take a common-sense view of the, actions of the parties. His'Houour summed up and then put the following issues to the jury:—Did the respondent commit adultery with the co-respondent? and did the co-re-spondent commit adultery with the respondent? “ I apprehend that the evidence will leave you very little doubt as to what the proper answers should be,” he added.

Retiring at 4.7, the jury returned fifteen mintites later with an affirmative answer to each question. - .Mr White moved for a decree nisi, and His Honour made the' order requested, directing that it should be made absolute after the expiration of three months, Air Anderson asked,for wife’s costs.

His Honour ordered that the petitioner should pay the respondent’s costs amounting to £25, and that the co-re-’ spoudent should pay the petitioner that sum of £25, plus £3O and witnesses’expenses and disbursements to be fixed by the registrar.