APPEAL IN DIVORCE CASE

Taranaki Daily News, 16 October 1931, Page 3

APPEAL IN DIVORCE CASE

ECHO OF PERJURY PROSECUTION-

COURT RESERVES ITS DECISION.

By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Oct. 15.

Evidence given by two witnesses who afterwards admitted perjury was the subject of lengthy discussion in the Court of Appeal when Harold Neaves Austin, labourer of New Plymouth, appealed from a decision of Mr. Justice. Adams in which he set aside a verdict given by a jury and ordered a new trial of'h petition in divorce brought by Austin, against his wife, Violet Eliza Austin/(Mr. Evans). The ground of the original petition was adultery, and William James Newell was named, as corespondent. The Court reserved its decision. Continuing his argument this morning Mr. C. H. Croker submitted that it could be clearly seen from statements made by Walker in the Court below that bis evidence there in at least one important particular was false, and it was beyond all doubt to the Court that perjury, which was looked for, would be found in the evidence given at the trial and not in the subsequent affidavits.

Mr. Cooke in reply submitted that to allow the order for a new trial to stand merely because of respondents’ • alleged perjury, which was unproved, would mean "that appellant would be put t the expense of a new trial- Respondents had their remedy in independent action, and that was a more just course to adopt.