STRANGE DIVORCE CASE.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume VI, Issue 1808, 29 November 1919, Page 13

STRANGE DIVORCE CASE.

BROTHER AS CO-RESPONDENT. PETITION DISMISSED. The petition of John Thomas Barker, furniture dealer, of 190 Wordsworth Street, Sydenham, for dissolution of his marriage with Fanny Barker, was dismissed in the Supreme Court yesterday. Peculiar interest attached to the case, from the fact that George Oollett Barker, a brother of the petitioner, was cited as co-respondent. His Honour Mr Justice Herdman presided at the trial. Mr O. T. J. Alpers represented the petitioner, Mr M. J. Oresson the respondent, and Mr K. M. Gresson the corespondent. The chief witness was a 17-year-old daughter of the petitioner, who gave evidence of an act of misconduct by the respondent and co-respondent. No evidence was called to corroborate the girl's statement. Mr M. .). Gresson said he would not call any evidence or address the jury, except to say that no jury could grant a divorce on such a tissue of lies as the girl had told. Mr Alpers said ho could not conceive of a girl of 17, who was of apparently good character, tell such a story against. her own mother if it was not true. There was no reason why she should have invented such a story. However, the jury must be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the girl's story

was true before it could find for the petitioner.

In summing up, his Honour suggested to the jury that it would bo a dangerous thing to find adultery against the respondent and co-respondent on the uncorroborated story of the girl. His Honour commented on the strange eonduct of the girl in failing, for several months, to tell anyone of what she said she had seen. He considered the petitioner 's case was weak. After a short retirement the jury brought in a verdict against the petitioner, and the petition was accordingly dismissed. The petitioner was ordered to pay the respondent's costs, £4O, and the co-respondent's costs, £'SO. Disbursements were left to the registrar to settle. Arising out of this case Rose Barker, wife of the co-respondent, filed a petition for divorce against him. | Mr Alpers, on behalf of the petitioner, said that, in view of the decision in the jollier case, he would interview his client j before proceeding further. If the petitioner followed his advice the case | would not be heard of again.