NELSON DIVORCE CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20863, 4 May 1931, Page 10

NELSON DIVORCE CASE.

SOLICITOR AND HIS WIFE. CO-RESPONDENT TO PAY. PETITIONER AWARDED £750. A QUESTION OF " CHIVALRY." A divorce case, in which Cyril Malcolm Rout was petitioner and Mary Frances Rout respondent, was heard in the 'Supreme Court in Nelson last week. The ground for the petition was alleged misconduct. Wallace Frank Snodgras.s, against whom damages were claimed, was co-respondent. The case was before the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, and a jury. Mr. S. 11. Moyuagh appeared for the petitioner, Mr. ('. It. Fell for the respondent, and Mr. (.!. Samuel for (lie co-respondent. Mr. Fell said he would enter no defence.

The petitioner, a solicitor, iti evidence said ho married the respondent, then Mary Frances Tancred, in 1921, at. Nelson. There were two children, one horn in 1922 and the other in August, 1929. Up to 1929 the marriage was happy, and just prior to filing the petition the petitioner had not the slightest ground to suspect his wife's conduct. The co-re-spondent's home was next door.. Witness' brother married co-respondent's sister, and the co-respondent had always had a welcome at witness' house, going in and ouL without any formality. Both co-respondent and respondent played a lot of tennis together with the consent, of witness.

Witness said he had known co-respon-dent since he was a boy and lie had always looked upon him as an overgrown boy. Respondent went to Blenheim with tennis teams twice last year. In .September last year, at a private dance, it came to the notice of witness that co-respon-dent had a bottle of cherry brandy which he (witness) knew his wife was fond of. atlhough she was not a drinker by any means. Co-respondent Forbidden the House. In consequence of what he had noticed at the dance, witness spoke sharply to co-respondent and forbade him to go to his house. As a consequence there was extreme unpleasantness between witness and his wife. She came home from the dance saying she was going to leave him for making such a fuss about a few (lances, and that she was going to lead her own life. Witness begged her to stay, and she said she would if she could continue her friendship with Snodgrass. This witness refused.

Witness gave details of circumstances which led to the filing of the petition, including a trip 'which respondent took to Christchurch last June when she was supposed to be in Wellington. Witness asked his wife why (she went, and then told her that he knew the reason, and that he was going to divorce her. Respondent frankly admitted it, and said she supposed it had to come. She asked if Frnuk knew, and witness replied that lie would tell him next day. Respondent asked if she could ring him up and tell him, and witness offered no objection. She made an appointment with co respondent, and on returning home said that it would be all light, as Snodgrass was going to marry her. Proceedings Commenced.

Witness said he commenced proceedings next day . lie left home the previous night, and passing his home the next night saw co-respondent's car outside his house. He went in and found his wife and Snodgrass in the sitting room. Witness instantly ordered Snodgrass out of the house. Snodgrass slunk out of the house, and witness followed him to the gate. Respondent also came out asking witness not to be hard, and then both of them drqve off in co-respondent's car. Snodgrass, continued petitioner, was a fellow-member of the Nelson Club, and when witness issued proceedings he laid a charge against Snodgrass under the rules of the club, and asked that it be carried out. lie was also a fellow-officer in the territorials, and he informed his commanding officer that he intended to lay a charge against Snodgrass under the King's Regulations. The co-respondent, however, applied (o be transferred to the reserve, and this was granted. He had never found his wife-misconducting herself with anybody.

George Malcolm Rout, brother of the petitioner, said that co-respondent called on him after the papers were served, and said that he (Snodgrass) was to blame, and that he could not blame Cyril at all.

Mr. Samuel intimated that he was not calling evidence Neither Mr. Fell nor Mr. Moynagh addressed the jury. Mr. Samuel, in addresing the jury, submitted that there was no evidence that co-respondent had misconducted himself with the respondent. Co-respondent's action in obtaining a transfer from the territorials and his other actions were owing to a desire to make as little trouble as possible, and to spaie the-feelings of respondent. Counsel also suggested that it was from the same motive that corespondent did not go into the box. Eemarks by the Judge.

The Chief Justice, in summing up, said the jury had all the evidence before them, and were entitled to regard petitioner as a truthful and honest witness. His Honor, referring to counsel's suggestion that co-respondent, had transferred from the territorials and had not gone into the box from motives of chivalry, remarked: "Motives of chivalry! Gentlemen, I suggest to you that if he had had a spark of chivalry in him lie would have kept, awav from Mrs. Rout." "If this man had had any motives of chivalry and could have denied the charge," went on His Honor, "what was his duty as an honest and chivalrous man ? To stav away and leave it to you to find (he inference that adultery had been committed '! Surely, as this has been put to you bv Mr. Samuel, you are entitled to say so. If he could have honestly and truthfully denied the charge, and lie' wanted to he chivalrous and proled Mrs. Rout, his duty was not to keep away hut to go into the box and protect her reputation. It would have been much better if suggestions of chivalrous motives had not been made." The jury, after 20 minutes' retirement, found that misconduct had occurred between respondent and co-respondent. It, was staled by Mr. Moynagh that it had been agreed, in the event of the jury finding for the petitioner, lo assess the damages at £750. By the direction of llis Honor the jury then entered a formal verdict for the amount agreed upon. A decree nisi was then made, to be moved absolute in three months. Interim custody of the son was given to the peti. tioncr. and that of the daughter lo the respondent.