DIVORCES SOUGHT

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22117, 24 May 1935, Page 14

DIVORCES SOUGHT

'A COUNTER-PETITION EXCITING MOTOR OHABE JURY'S MAJORITY VERDICT

The hcsiring of the petition of Edward Albert Johns, motor engineer (Mr. Schramm), for divorce from Irono Kari Salome Johns (Mr. S. 11. Mason), was concluded before Mr. Justice Fair and a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday. The grounds of the petition wore allegations of misconduct against respondent. The respondent, in a cross-petition alleged misconduct on the part of the petitioner. The parties wero married on September 13, 1933, and there are no children. The petitioner left homo in December, 1931, on account of a disturbance that occurred. Theo Murray, a young man who had been in the house with Mrs. Johns on the evening of February 9, denied any suggestion of improper conduct.

Mr. Mason called evidence in support of the counter-petition, which alleged that Johns had committed misconduct on April 18. A chase after Johns in a taxicab was described by a private detective, who said Mrs. Johns and he and another woman had pursued Johns and a woman in a car. Johns was driving at 50 or 60 miles an hour, cutting corners, and dashing in front of tramcars, sometimes with his lights out, in order to shake off the pursuers. The chase lasted for 20 or 25 minutes before witness' car lost sight of Johns' car. Mr. Schramm submitted that there was no evidence in support of the crosspetition, and asked His Honor to withdraw it from the jury. His Honor said it seemed a case only of suspicion. He would rule ngainst the cross-petition and direct the jury that there was not sufficient evidence to justify them in holding the allegations against petitioner proved. In addressing the jury, His Honor directed it to disregard suspicion and suggestion. There must have been perjury on one side, he said. It was his duty to warn them that the evidence of a private inquiry agent should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. After a retirement of more than three hours the jury returned with a majority verdict for the respondent, and the petition was dismissed. Mr; : Schramm was granted leave to apply for a new hearing on the ground thcit the verdict was against the weight of evidence.

WIPE'S ALLEGATIONS

A PETITION CONTESTED

The petition of Gladys Hobson (Mr. Schramm) for divorce from Peter Hobson (Mr. Dickson) was contested before Mr. Justice Reed and a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday. The petition was based on allegations of misconduct committed by Hobson. Mr. Norris appeared on behalf of the young woman with whom it was alleged Hobson had been guilty of misconduct. The parties were married at Morecambe, Lancaster, England, in October, 1915, and lived together at Stockport and afterwards in New Zealand. There were two children of the marriage, and the petitioner asked for the'custody of the younger. The case was adjourned until this morning.