DIVORCE COURT ECHO

New Zealand Times, Volume LII, Issue 12194, 20 July 1925, Page 4

DIVORCE COURT ECHO

DAMAGES TO HUSBAND WAS £ISOO TOO MUCH FOR HIM? CASE BEFORE APPEAL COURT The Appeal Court on Friday was occupied with the case in which Daniel Tranter, of Christchurch, motor engineer, appealed against the judgmentof Mr Justice Adams setting aside the verdict of the jury for the sum of (£ISOO granted as damages against James Lamb, hotelkeeper, Sydney, who was cited as co-respondent in a divorce ease between appellant and his wife, Luoy Tranter. The grounds cited in the appeal was that this judgment was erroneous in fact and law. The court was composed of Mr Justice Sim, Mr Justice Herdman, and Mr Justice MacPregor. Messrs F. D. gUrgent and A. M. Cousins appeared for the appellant, and Messrs A. T. Donnelly and A. W. Brown for the co-respondent. Counsel for the appellant stated that the parties' were married in Christchurch in,; January, 1917, one child being born of'the marriage. On September 10th, 1924,. a dissolution of the marriage was granted on the grounds of adultery with the co-respondent, damages being granted to the extent Of £I6OO. This judgment had been reversed by Mr Justioe Adams. He quoted authorities to show that the verdict of a jury in such, coses whs not to be lightly set aside, even where the judge was .of the opinion and where the facts pointed to the damages awarded haying been excessive. He urged that the hlpw to the 1 honpur . of the. appellant and :tTbo loss of his wife’s affections justly' entitled him to the damages awarded*.* yV, Mr Justice Sim: In this case adultery -has bce'n admitted. The woman * war, apparently worthless, aCit'to give dam-

ages in such a case would be a contravention of the principle governing their award.. The idea, of granting damages is to give compensation for the alienation of the affections of a good woman. In this case the petitioner was 1 well rid of-her. Mr Justice Herdman: In fact your client should pay compensation to Lamb for taking her away from him. Counsel proceeding held that it was not until the co-respondent made the acquaintance of Mrs Tranter that she had forgotten her marital obligations. The whole of the differences between the parties had been caused by him, and he held that the £ISOO awarded was only a reasonable sum, especially .as it would be invested for the purpose of providing someone to look after the child. A “REASONABLE” AMOUNT. Mr Donnelly, for the respondent, stated that he had fully agreed in the case in the lower court that a reasonable amount of damages was in justice payable, but he held that the amount granted was excessive. He held that considering the conduct of the petitioner before the divorce and subsequently, as regards his relations with his wife, the jury must have assessed | the damages on some principle other than that laid down for their guidance in such cases. The petitioner had not in the divorce proceedings held that he had suffered any affront to his honour, but based his calculation of the damages asked for oh losses which he had sustained in certain speculations, which ho attributed to his wife’s conduct.' Counsel quoted from the evidence of the Divorce Court proceedings to show that the marriage had not been a happy one. A voluntary separation had been agreed to, the wife had gone to Sydney, no maintenance

being allowed, and counsel contended that* it was only after the petitioner had ascertained the financial position of the co-respondent that he had commenced proceedings. A letter was read from co-respondent to the petitioner asking that Tranter should not let his (Lamb’s) wife know that Mr Tranter was'going to Sydney, which argued a strange relationship between the parties. Mr Justice MacGregor: Do yon suggest that the husband was a consenting party ? Air Donnelly: No, hardly that Your Honour. Mr Justice Sim: A remarkable letter oertainly. i Continuing, counsel reiterated his belief that the case was one for damages, and on inquiry from the bench suggested that whilst he had no deeire to invade the province of the bench, he would say that had these been assessed at somewhere about £SOO, no complaint, would have been made. Ho suggested further that it would be advisable that some such arrangement might I>e made to this effect. Mr Justice Sim: What do you say, Mr Sargent? Are you willing that the court should fix the amount P i Mr Sangent: I would wish to discuss the matter with my learned friend. Mr Cousins: I would prefer that a jury should assess the damages. Judgment was reserved.