PETITION FAILS

Northern Advocate, 18 August 1933, Page 8

PETITION FAILS

HO DIVORCE DECREE THE* RICHARDSON CASE " HUSBAND TO PAY COSTS. LENGTHY CASE FINALISED. AWIFE WANTS SEVERANCE,

r Special to ‘ Northern Advocate.”) |: ?® P6C AUCKLAND, This Day. By a unanimous verdict, the jury yesterday evening found a verdict or respondent in the Richardson 1% or I- action. The case, which commenced H on Wednesday morning of last wee c, |v closed at 5.50 p.m. yesterday, the bears'. ing -occupying seven days. Thc P c | W- turner, itenneth Rahiri George iem ardson, petitioned for divorce f*om ? MonA Mary Richardson on the grounds '§■' of her alleged adultery with Harry Reginald v Jenkins, company promoter and“ex-M.P. Both respondent and coll respondent denied the petitioner s K&f allegation. fr The action was heard before Mr. ll Justice Smith, and counsel in the case I; wete .Mr. Weston for petitioner, Mr. |f Singer for respondent and Mr. Johnfe stonaAfor co-respondent, i. Ih his address to the jury yesterday |f ; aft&noon, His Honour quoted at length H ft&k'-: the evidence and dwelt on the |i s tofy told by the witness Morrison refl|| gardihg happenings on the night of f:- March 18, 1932, at the Waipapakaun I Hotel. His Honour made it fairly If; cleat ■ that the evidence of Morrison A was the most important called for petih. tioner, and it was for the jury to decide) whether they should accept it as trap.' Morrison had stated definitely |-A that Jenkins was in Mrs’. Richardson’s r oom that night and did not go to his |f bedroom until about 4 o’clock in the It morning, but against that was the evii; denee.of Mrs. Richardson, Jenkins and |J; Mrs! Richardson’s brother, Ted Otway, L w bo all’denied that Jenkins was in the || room till the hour stated by Morrison. Again, there was the evidence of the I!- licensee Thode, and it was for the i jury to decide whether it was to be If A accepted as true. |J ( The question of damages had only to be considered if the jury came to the f conclusion that the adultery alleged had f- been committed. Damages were not <■ awarded as a punishment to show that II adultery was wrong, but were awarded I as for the injury sufp ferbdi'A What injury had Richardson | suffered? His wife brought no money If intiT his home, she and he had lived 4 an -unhappy life together, and finally she had left him. What loss had she p-'V been to him as a consort? His Honuur answered his own suggestion by saying: If “Nothing at all. ’’ If-- “The only ground I can see for damages in this case is if any damage has been done to the honour of the if; person wronged,” concluded His Ir-f Hotibur. AC | Three Prime Issues. He put the following issues to the jury:— Af 1. Did the respondent commit adultery with co-respondent? 2. Did the co-respondent commit adultery with the respondent, f 3. Damages. | The jury returned after an hour and |A a half and the foreman announced that g the answers to the issues numbers (1) and (2) were “No.” 4 Mr. Singer at once asked that the petition be dismissed. Hia Honour; “Yes, the petition is |I dismissed.” Wv- Mr. Singer: “I ask for costs for six extra days at £ls/15/- a day.” fA Mr. Johnstone; “I ask for similar costs for co-respondent, also costs for AA, second counsel at £5/5/- a day,” |A His Honour granted costs at £ls/15/a ‘day for the six extra days for Mr. 5 Singer and Mr. Johnstone and £5/5/a day for LoVegrove. Mr. Singer; “I have my client’s |: instructions to ask you if you will be ||: good enough to hear her divorce peti|A tion tomorrow morning. She now deli/ sires to be rid of her husband’s name, f- ‘ She has cleared her name and now wants to be clear of her husband.” , Ig.ri' His Honour said that Mr, Justice A Herdman would be hearing divorces toil, day, and Mr. Singer could mention the p petition to him.