PETITIONS IN DIVORCE

Taranaki Daily News, 25 February 1931, Page 2

PETITIONS IN DIVORCE

MAORI AS CO-RESPONDENT COGENT EVIDENCE NECESSARY. JUDGE ADJOURNS THE CASE. Several undefended divorce petitions were heard by Mr. Justice Adams in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday. Neho Hemi Papakura was named as co-respondent in a petition on the grounds of adultery against Vera Marian James. .' Walter Horace James said he was married on July 9, 1913, at the Presbyterian Church, Eltham. He lived with his wife at various places. There were three children.

He had been separated from Mrs. Jones for 10 years, but she gave birth to a -child fairly recently, its name being registered as Colenso Neho. He could not say whether its third name was Hemi. It was born at New Plymouth on December 5, 1927. His Honour; I cannot listen to evidence by this witness questioning the legitimacy of the child. Samuel John Jackson, licensed native interpreter, New Plymouth, said he knew Mrs. James and-Papakura. He first knew her when James and he were in the hospital in 1916. He had since frequently seen her with Papakura in the daytime and v evening. She worked at. a hotel in New Plymouth. .> . • He had no doubt of the signature of Papakura on a form for persons registering a birth. This was produced to the court by J. S. S. Medley, registrar of births, deaths and marriages in New Plymouth. The name of the mother, said Mr. Medley, was given as Mrs. James. On the document the name of Papakura and other details concerning him had subsequently been struck out with a pen. His Honour pointed out that the signature on the form was struck out, whereupon Mr. C. H. Croker (for James) said he took it that Papakura had struck out his name on finding he need not register as the father of an illegitimate child.

His Honour asked for definite evidence of the signing and striking out. The mere signing of the document and strikout out could not be evidence of adultery without further proof. Mr. Croker urged it as sufficient that the child was born some years after the mother’s separation from hei’ husband, and the certificate was produced showii.g the child had a native name.

His Honour said, however, that he could not embark on a series of inferences. Cogent evidence of adultery must be presented, and he did not think that had been done. He could certainly not grant a decree on the evidence produced. •

The petition was adjourned till next session, counsel saying he thought he could obtain the required evidence concerning non-cohabition, etc., from Opunake,. where James worked as a carpenter.

PROPER EVIDENCE REQUIRED.

WOMAN’S HUSBAND IN PRISON.

Petitioning for divorce on the ground of adultery, Elizabeth Vera Seager said she married Reginald Eugene Seager in June, 1926. When the police were searciting for her husband they informed her he had committed adultery. She handed to the judge a document from the Supreme Court in Wellington corroborating her evidence. His Honour (to counsel): But that is not all your case? Mr. H. D. Caplin: I think so. The letter shows he is in prison serving a sentence for a certain crime. His Honour said that was not sufficient legal proof. Counsel had to prove by evidence that the man had committed adultery. That could not be proved by hearsay evidence, but only by direct evidence.

The judge said counsel .was asking the wife to prove that a man of the same name sentenced at a session of the court at which she was not present was identical with her husband. The two letters produced from the deputy registrar of the court did not prove legally that he was her husband.

On counsel’s application the hearing was adjourned to Wellington, where, he said, it would be possible to bring evidence of a more direct nature. MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL. AUSTIN DEFENDED ACTION. On the grounds that the verdict of the jury in favour of the petitioner last week was against the weight of evidence, argument was heard by Mr. Justice Adams on the motion for a new trial of the 'divorce suit by Harold Neaves Austin against Violet Eliza Austin, on' the ground of adultery with William James Newell, co-respondent. After a lengthy 'discussion further argument was adjourned till this morning. The motion -was moved, by Mr; C. H. Croker (for the co-respondent) and supported by Mr. A. A. Bennett (for the respondent). R. H. Quilliam opposed on behalf of the petitioner. DECREES MADE ABSOLUTE. PERMANENT ALIMONY GRANTED. The decree nisi was made absolute between Alice Clark and Charles Clark on the application of Mr. C. H. Croker ■the petitioner being given permanent alimony.