DIVORCE DEGREE REVOKED

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LVI, 10 April 1922, Page 1

DIVORCE DEGREE REVOKED

REMARKABLE ENGLISH CASE

AUSCONtJUCr DISPROVED

The question whether the decree nisi

granted by Air Justice Branson to Mrs Rutherford could be allowed to stand since the Court of Appeal accepted evidence as showing that Miss Elizabeth Richardson had not committed misconduct witli Colonel Rutherford was recently argued before the Master of the Rolls and Lords Justices Warrington and Atkin in the Court of Appeal. Their Lordships decided that the decree must be anmillel. The Court, however, granted Mrs Rutherford an order for judicial separation, with the custody of the children.

Mr§ Rutherford's decree was obtained on the ground of the cruelty of her husband, Colonel Norman Cecil Rutherford, now in Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum in connection with the murder of Major Miles Charles Seton, and on the ground of Colonel Rutherford’s alleged misconduct witli his cousin, Miss Amy Elizabeth Richardson. The Attorney-General , (Sir Gordon lllewart, K.C.), wo appeared for the King’s Proctor, explained that the case raised a question of no little difficulty. When Mrs Rutherford launched her petition it alleged misconduct with various persons. Rut at the hearing there was no evidence of misconduct with oilier persons. Tho allegation then was misconduct with ’Miss 'Richardson on the occasion when it was said that Colonel Rutherford, went up toll er bedroom. Mr Justice Branson was satisfied that misconduct on this occasion took place. But Miss Richardson afterwards satisfied the Court of Appeal not only that the evidence against her failed, but that she was entitled, to be described as innocent. Therefore this very rave result arose, There were two contradictory findings on the single limited relevant issue of fact.

.‘‘lt seem? 1" ’lie,” yicl Sir Gordon, in conclusion, '‘both legally and logically impossible that the decision of Your Lordships should exist side by side with the decree that was pronounced.”

Mr Bayford, K.C., who appeared for Mrs Rutherford, submitted that the decree ought to stand on the finding that Colonel Rutherford had been guilty of misconduct with Miss Richardson.

The Master of the Roils in giving judgment, said that, in view of the finding of the Court of Appeal on the appeal of Miss Richardson, he thought the Court should say that it was not satisfied that Colonel Rutherford had committed misconduct. “From one point of view,” added His Lordship, “it may bo very hard on the petitioner. But, after all, if a petitioner launches a petition on evidence that does not satisfy the Court, I do not know that there is any great hardship in the petition being dismissed.” Lord Justice Warrington concurred. Lord Justice Atkin, in also concurring, said that on a former occasion he went ■so far as to say that the allegation against Miss Richardson had been disproved. It followed that the petition must be dismissed. Any other result would be revolting to common sense. Mr Bayford said that if he could get it without prejudicing his rights of appeal ho would prefer an order for judicial separation, with the custody of the children. The Master oL the Rolls: I think vou are entitled to that.