MORGAN DIVORCE CASE

Greymouth Evening Star, 14 November 1934, Page 5

MORGAN DIVORCE CASE

PETITION DISMISSED [PER PBESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON, November 13. Judge Reed, summing up in the Morgan divorce case; said that in the forefront of the case, which made it unique in His experience, was the fact that though adultery was alleged, there was hot a tittle of evidence of adultery, except in the alleged adinissioh. There had been no evidence that the respondent and co-respondent had been in any compromising positions. The alienations were that adultery occurred at GisboTne, at a dance, and at Hastings. Respondent and corespondent had been seen dancing together, and she went away afterwards in his company. Dancing was not denied, but no inference could be drawn from that fact. There was no evidence whatsoever, from which any inference could be drawn, outside of such admissions as were alleged to have been made.

Four issues were put to the jury, which were: Did respondent commit adultery with co-respondent at Gisborne ; did co-respondent commit adultery with respondent at Gisborne; did respondent commit adultery with corespondent at Hastings; did co-respon-dent commjt .adultery with respondent at Hastings? That might appeal’ strange, continued His Honor, but the reason for so putting the issues was that there was evidence which might be held to apply to the respondent, but not to the co-respondent. There had been cases before the Court where the wife admitted the whole guilt, but had not appeared, while the co-respondent, in,the Court, had defended the case. Juries had found against the respondent, but not against the co-respond-ent. It followed there must be eliminated all admissions made by the respondent when the co-respondent was not present. The only evidence against the co-respondent was that he signed the admission.

The jury would probably be satisfied that the couple had been leading more or less of a “cat and dog” life. In spite of the fact they had been happily married in April, 1933, in less than a year they had separated. It was perfectly obvious that both wanted the separation, although while acquiescing in separation the parties were quite friendly meantime. There was no suggestion of a broken-hearted husband imploring his wife to return. The same dispassionate attitude was observed after the admission had, allegedly, been made. There was no particularly hard feeling ovex* the matter, and one could not imagine a brok-en-lxearted husband, suggesting, aftei’ the interview in Ongley’s office, and saying light-heartedly, “Let’s go to the pictures.” “It is a most unfortunate thing that this thing was dealt with in the way it was,” said His Honor, “Was the aixxiety of the petitioner to get these things signed the object, because he thought he would get damages from Marsh? His action leaves a very uneasy feeling that it was so. It may have been an unfortunate mattex’ that he practically robbed, ox’ attempted to rob Marsh of the paper.” The way the admission was drafted was characterised by His Honor, as revealing a most unusual position. He read from the evidence that Ongley had said that “Where shall we put that adultery took place?” Respondent had answered, “Oh, put Hastings, in February.” “Were yon in Hastings in February?” the lawyer had asked, to which respondent replied, “Yes. February will do.” Negative replies were returned by the jury to each question, and the petition was dismissed with costs, against the petitioner. An applicatioxi fox’ costs on behalf of the co-respondent was opposed, and will be argued later.

WITNESS’S CONTEMPT. WELLINGTON, November 14. Mrs Blanche Ware, subpoenaed as 11 witness, but who refused to attend the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon, to give evidence in divorce proceedings, was in imminent peril of spending last night in the cells. She was brought before the Court this morning, on a Bench warrant issued by Mr Justice Reed. She was warned, and released from custody.