DIVORCE SEQUEL

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 20861, 13 August 1942, Page 5

DIVORCE SEQUEL

NEW TRIAL REFUSED CUSTODY OF CHILDREN Several matters arising out of recent divorce proceedings between Charles Patrick Belton (Mr. M. Robinson) and Joyce Doreen Belton and James Meldriun Scarlett (Mr. G. Skelton), were brought before Mr. Justice Fair in Auckland this week. At the close of a lengthy hearing last May a jury found that the respondent and corespondent had committed adultery, and awarded the petitioner £9OO damages against Scarlett. Before moving for a new trial, Mr. Skelton said that the co-respondent Scarlett, who was now in the army, had made an offer which, if accepted, would make the application for a new trial unnecessary. Mr. Robinson said he was not prepared to accept the offer. Mr. Skelton then moved for a new trial on the ground that His Honour had misdirected the jury on the question of damages. Counsel submitted that punitive damages were not admissible in a case of adultery, but that the damages must be compensatory only. The jury had applied a wrong measure of damages, and so a miscarriage of justice had resulted. In refusing the application, His Honour said he thought his direction to the jury had been correct, and gave no basis for a new trial. No substantial wrong had been caused. Mr. Robinson asked His Honour to fix the damages in favour of the children through the Public Trustee. Mr. Skelton said that, in view of the smallness of the amount likely to be available, he thought the whole of it should go lo the children. His Honour made an order accordingly, ordering the damages recovered to be paid to the Public Trustee for tire benefit of the children. His Honour reserved the question of costs after hearing argument. In supporting the father’s petition for custody of the two children, Mr. Robinson said that during the past few weeks Belton had been employed at a wage of £6 a week and commission, and had been earning about £2O a week. In anticipation of obtaining custody of the children, he had bought a seven-roomed house. He was a man of unblemished character. The respondent, aged 29, was now dependent entirely on the assistance ol’ her parents. His Honour saicl he had the very difficult question to decide of what was best in the present, and future interests of the children. He stood the case over until next week, and directed Mr. Robinson to submit an affidavit from the petitioner.