SIGNALS TO WITNESS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23516, 2 June 1938, Page 16

SIGNALS TO WITNESS

INCIDENT IN DIVORCE ACTION REPORTED BY JURYMAN (Per United Press Association) AUCKLAND, June 1. During the hearing in the Supreme Court to-day of a claim for £IOOO damages arising out of a divorce action on the grounds of alleged adultery, and while counsel was cross-examin-ing a witness, the wife of a private detective, the foreman of the jury rose and, addressing Mr Justice Callan, said: “Excuse me, sir, but one jf the jurymen says that the husband of the witness is signalling from the back of the court.” His Honor said lie had not noticed it, but the foreman had done the proper thing in reporting the matter. “ If the husband does it again he will have to leave the court,” his Honor added, instructing tlje court orderly u> keep a look-out. The case in question is Donald v. Donald, with David Brideson cited as co-respondent. Damages are claimed from Brideson. The respondent, Mrs Donald, said she had known the Bridesons for 25 years, and had been a constant friend of Mrs Brideson for 17 years. Brideson owned a racing track, and she did a little gambling with him. After the incident at Orakei on March 22, 1937, her husband tried to get her to leave and she did so. A fortnight later she went to Brideson’s temporarily, and the arrangement was that she rented a house from Brideson and he paid her £3 a week for board for himself and for his man. There was another boarder at present. Witness denied all the allegations made by the petitioner. She said her husband had said that if she would give him £IOO that would square everything. Witness said she had been getting about £4 a week from her husband before they parted. 3he always attended the trotting meetings at Auckland. She did not ask for maintenance from her husband because she was able to keep herself as she ha i done before.

The co-respondent, Brideson, denied that he had ever committed adultery with the respondent or had been guilty of any act of familiarity or impropriety. He denied in detail the evidence for the petitioner.

The case was adjourned until tomorrow, when his Honor will sum up.