£750 DAMAGES AWARDED

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 19882, 8 March 1939, Page 4

£750 DAMAGES AWARDED

ADULTERY PROVED DECREE NISI GRANTED VERDICT OF JURY A verdict that it was satisfied that adultery had been proved and awarding damages amounting to £750 was returned yesterday afternoon in the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Morthcroft by the jury which considered the petition for divorce and claim for £IOOO damages brought by Gordon McGregor Frederick Marshall iMr. M. R. Maude) against Vera Ethel Marshall, respondent, and Frederick William Peddle, jun. (Mr. A. P. Blair), co-respondent. His Honour granted a decree nisi to be moved absolute in three months, the co-respondent being ordered to pay costs on the lowest scale. During the continuation of the hearing late yesterday afternoon, Mr. Maude submitted that the two, respondent and co-respondent, had several opportunities to commit adultery. Points in the correspondence, he said, were confirmed 'by the witnesses ir> their evidence. Question of Damages On the question of damages, Mr. Maude said that the petitioner was 3 clean-living man who had had implied trust in his wife. It might be said that he was well rid of the woman, but he was left with three children and had to sell his home and send the children to a home because he was unable to .pay a housekeeper. The damages were claimed so that the petitioner could provide a home for his children. On behalf of the co-respondent, Mr. Blair said that if'it was considered that adultery was proved, the damages awarded should not be too heavy. He suggested that the petitioner would not be greatly disturbed by the loss of his wife's companionship. The fact ‘that it was in the public's interest that it had been decided that divorces should not be granted unless the grounds were completely proved was explained by His Honour in 'his summing up. It was ve-y rare thatadultery was proved directly, he said, and most common for it to be proved circumstantially. Ilis Honour’s Opinion His Honour said that there was an abundance of evidence that the man was showing great favour towards the wom'an, and that she admitted having received presents from him. Counsel had asked the jury to Infer that the outcome of such affection would 'be adultery if the occasion arose. However, His Honour said, evidence of opportunity was weak, but he was satisfied tha't he was entitled to allow the case to go before the jury for consideration. In coming to that decision, the borderline had just been crossed The fact that the woman went out in the co-respondent’s car alone with him gave them the necessary opportunity, but it did not follow that they took advantage of that opportunity. The case 'had to be examined quite apart from the correspondence. Dealing with the question of damages His Honour said that if the woman m a case was a woman of the streets the husband would be well rid of her and not entitled to damages. If, however, the adulterer was an intimate of th a household and, by virtue of that it followed that the woman did not yield as easily as in the first case quoted, heavier damages were justified. In all eases the damages awarded in such a case were to compensate a man for his loss, not to enrich him. The jury returned with a verdict ir favour of the petitioner, awarding him £750 damages and recommending that the larger part be set aside for the children. Before proceeding further with the matter of damages, His Honour said that it would be necessary for him to know more of the circumstances of the petitioner and respondent.