DIVORCE NOT GRANTED

Taranaki Daily News, 14 November 1934, Page 7

DIVORCE NOT GRANTED

MORGAN CASE CONCLUDES OLYMPIC ATHLETES’ AFFAIRS. UNIQUE FEATURES IN CASE. MARSH’S ALLEGED ADMISSION. By Telegraph—Pi-ess Association. Wellington, Last Night. The divorce petition brought by Edward Morgan, former Olympic champion boxer, on the grounds of adultery between his wife, Norma Morgan (nee Wilson), a former New Zealand representative at the Olympic Games, and the co-respondent, Rangi Marsh, a jockey, was dismissed in the Supreme Court to-day. Morgan claimed £5OO damages from Marsh. Mr. Justice Read, summing up, said that in the forefront of the case, which made it unique in his experience, was the fact that though adultery was alleged there was not a tittle of evidence of adultery except in the alleged admission. There had been no evidence that respondent and co-respondent had been in any compromising positions. The allegations were that adultery occurred at Gisborne at a dance, and at Hastings. Respondent and co-respondent had been seen dancing together, and she went away afterwards in his company. The dancing was denied, but no inference could be drawn from that fact. There was no evidence whatsoever from which any inference could be drawn outside of such admissions as had allegedly been made.

The four issues put to the jury were: Did the respondent commit adultery with the co-respondent at Gisborne? Did co-respondent commit adultery with the respondent at Gisborne? Did respondent commit adultery with the respondent at Hastings? That might appear strange, continued His Honour, but the reason for so putting the issues was that there was evidence which might be held to apply., to the respondent but not to the- co-re-spondent. There had ’ been cases before the Court Where the wife admitted the whole guilt, but had not appeared, while the co-respondent in Court had defended. Juries had found against respondents in these cases, but not against corespondents. It followed that there must be eliminated all admissions made by the respondent when the co-respondent was not present. The only evidence against the co-respondent was that he signed an admission. ‘ "CAT AND DOG LIFE.” The jury would probably be satisfied that the couple had been leading more or less a cat and dog life. In spite of the fact that they were happily married in April, 1933, in less than a year they were separated. It was perfectly obvious that both wanted a separation. Although acquiescing in the separation the; parties were quite friendly. There was no suggestion of a broken-hearted husband imploring his wife to return. The same dispassionate attitude was observed after the admission had allegedly been made. There was no particularly hard feeling over the matter. One could not imagine a broken-hearted husband after an interview in Mr. Ongley’s office saying, lightheartedly, “Let’s go to the pictures.” “It is most unfortunate that this was dealt with in the way it was,” said His Honour. “Was the anxiety of petitioner to get these things signed because he thought he could get damages from Marsh? His action leaves a very uneasy feeling. If that was so it may have been an unfortunate matter that he practically robbed or attempted to rob Marsh of the paper.” The way the admission was drafted was characterised by His Honour as revealing the most unusual position. He read from the evidence that Mr. Ongley had said, “Where shall we put it that the adultery took place?” Respondent had answered, “Oh, put Hastings in February.” “Were you at Hastings in February,” the lawyer had asked, to which the respondent replied, “Yes; February will do.” ( Negative replies were returned by the jury to each question. The petition was dismissed with .costs against the petitioner. An application for costs on behalf of the co-respondent yras opposed and will be argued later.