EVIDENCE IN DIVORCE

Greymouth Evening Star, 5 December 1929, Page 12

EVIDENCE IN DIVORCE

AN INTERESTING DECISION. WELLINGTON, December 3. An interesting point regarding the evidence that must be forthcoming be* fore a decree can be granted in an undefended divorce suit based on an allegation of adultery was dealt with by the Chief Justice (the Hon. Mr. Myers) to-day, in an oral judgment, in the case of Hilda Judith Grace Woolcott. against Charles Roadman Woolcott. When the case was called yesterday the only evidence given was that of the petitioner, who stated that her husband had admitted to her that he had committed adultery. A letter written by the respondent was produced, in support of the petition’s statements. His Honor said that the evidence in the case consisted mainly of an admission or confession made in writing by the respondent. It had been held in the case of Wilkie against Wilkie (1929, N.Z.L.R.), that an admission by the respondent, whether, written or oral, was not in itself sufficient proof of adultery. No authorities were cited by the learned Judge who heard the case in support of the view he had expressed. His Honor said that he had looked into the authorities, and it seemed to him that the view so expressed was nof in accordance with those authorities. They showed that if the Court were satisfied that the confession was bona fide, that there was no doubt as to its genuineness and sincerity, a decree should be granted, even although there was no additional evidence. He had had the opportunity of discussing the matter with the learned Judge, who heard the case of Wilkie against Wilkie, and he believed the latter cncurred in the view he was now expressing.