RELUCTANCE OF WITNESS

Hawera Star, Volume LIII, 7 November 1933, Page 5

RELUCTANCE OF WITNESS

DECIDES NOT TO CARRY ON

DIVORCE CASE INTERRUPiTON

(By reiugrapn—Press Association., AUCKLAND, Nov. G. The hearing of an action for divorce and substantial damages was interrupt ed in an unusual way at the Supreme Court to-dav. A witness for the peti tioner who "had been in attendance m the morning failed to appear in Jit afternoon, and it was explained.that m had sent a telegram to counsel stating that he was not coming! back, having decided not to carry on. An adjourn nient wus therefore • granted until to morrow to allow counsel to issue a subpoena requiring the attendance o! the missing witness. The case was one in which l<Tanci« Charles Oldenshaw sought divorce from his wife, Winifred Alary Oldersliaw, on the grounds of adultery with Alfred Havter, hotel proprietor, of \\ India tan©, and claimed £ISOO damages. When it became necessary to call the last witness for the petitioner, Air Haig said this witness, who was tc o-ive" evidence relating to incidents which it was alleged had taken place at the Taneatua Hotel, had absented himself from the Court and had sent a telegram stating he was not coming back, having decided “not to carrv on.” Counsel said he had not suopoeneu this witness, and he asked for an adjournment to allow of this be: ng done. He explained that lie had walked from the Court with his client and the witness at ' 4, e luncheon adjournment, and it was understood that this witness would !)° at hand at the Court at 215 p.m. However, a telegram lodged before 2 p.m. announcing the witness’ intention not to appear had been delivered at counsel’s office and had been forwarded to him at the Court. Mr Justice Smith said this development placed the Court in a curious position, but after hearing an objection c rom Afr Singer, who appeared for the respondent, " he granted an adjournment.