THE LAW OF DIVORCE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20191, 31 August 1927, Page 5

THE LAW OF DIVORCE.

NEED FOR COMPLETE EVIDENCE. ADMISSIONS NOT SUFFICIENT. (Special to Daily Times.) AUCKLAND, August 30. The necessity for complete evidence in divorce suits v was emphasised in the Supremo Court to-day by Mr Justice Stringer. Zelmar Iris Ross (Mr Sullivan) petitioned for a decree nisi against Samuel George Ross on the ground of his alleged adultery with an unknown woman. Giving evidence, Mrs Ross said that in May last her husband admitted misconduct in September of the previous year. His Honor: How did the conversation arise ? Witness: We were having a quarrel about his drinking habits. He said he did not want me, and had been with tho other woman. Was he drunk?—He had had drink. “ This is not very satisfactory,” said his Honor. ‘‘ It would be the easiest thing in the world for a man who wanted to get rid of his wife to say, ‘ I don’t want and that he had committed misconduct.” Replying to Mr Sullivan the petitioner said that her husband often used to stay out all night, saying he was at a club. When she had gone to the club she had not found him there. His Honor said he was not prepared to grant a divorce upon a mere admission of misconduct, or the court would be opening a very easy way to collusion. Ho would require collateral circumstances to be proved in order to give some verisimilitude to the admission. Mr Sullivan pointed out that the adultery had been admitted in writing by the respondent, but his Honor adjourned the case ,in order to give further consideration to tho evidence.