SUPREME COURT

Timaru Herald, Volume CVIII, Issue 16883, 2 August 1919, Page 8

SUPREME COURT

(CONTINUED FBXM PAGE 5). MR HANLON,. FOR PETITIONTJR.

~-~-Mr Hanlon, for the petitioner, said the simple question was: Had the apondent and the co-respondent been guilty of misconduct, or had they riot? He was not able, he said,- to talk in beautifully rounded phrases, make era-, torical or forensic appeals, but as a simple, plain man he would endeavour to put the established facts before them. Mr Hanlon then reviewed the case in detail. Petitioner, having been absent at the war, was unable to give a igreat deal of evidence in the case, but they had it from him that he loved his wife and was loth to believe evil of her; but she had admitted her wrong to him, and there was abundant evidence in support of her admission. When she was accused of wrong-doing she said to petitioner: "We both-have our faults and our wrong-doings." That applied to everybody, but when sh© said this she was answering a charge of misconduct, and she could only havs meant one thing in her answer. She charged her husband with wrong-doing and said that he was as bad as she. .Surely that was an admission of guilt. They had it from the petitioner that in reply,to this charge by his wife he, hfd said that ho had never been guilty of t anything of which he was ashamed When Mrs .Strang had written to her (husband she had again, in effect, admitted adultery. It had been proved that she had night after night- been Been sitting in a room with the corespondent, and this fact taken with her admissions, verbal and \ written, dearly established misconduct on her part. The jury must take into-con-sideration all the facts. An attempt had been made to show rthat som® of the witnesses had been, mistaken in the dates they had given, but that did net matter a snap of the fingers when they Jiad the fact that the co-respondent hsa heon sitting night after night .with Mrs Strang in her bedroom. They had been told that Hunt was merely looking for a, fnend for ms wife. Disgusting trash! How any man could ask a jury or anv-1 one else to believe such rubbish ho was at a loss even to think. Counsel for tho respondent and co-respondent had Hot dared to challenge Miss Wall's evidence, and she had told them she had Keen Mrs Strang; and Hunt alone in tht, bouse together time after tim'e. Wonld tho jury say that Miss Wall's evidence *.. must be blown aside just because it « as "against Mrs Strang and Hunt—a man who wont with a woman whose husband was in France—too far awnv to cet a.t him. Why should Mrs • ■Wa.ll, Miss Wall" and Mrs Bobpon go into Court and tell lies about Hunt?

Ho knew of no reason. Hunt said he knew oi none, .incl it was toi the jury to say "\i bethel thoy could think of ;.ny 1 orison. - 'jV o |. f olu years thfe petitioner had'been l aw ay at the Jtt'roncand on his return his friends told him "how 'lfq 'had been wronged in his absence by t'ii'ii "coward ol a man, - and by his-(peti-tioner's) wife who had been unfaithful to him. It had been "askedrwn£ 'Mrs Wall had not turned Mrs Strang out of heV liouso sooner. The'fact was'tjiat Mis Wall, was a widow with four littljj children, and 'she had her-'living . to consider. They had it that when ]\lrs Sliang went to Jive in LeCien Street Kant left the Vh e Station and went to li-ic next house but one to her, and he had a. hole in the backyard fence In get into .section -'to gro„ cabbages. ' Ho seemed to -have taken a mania for growing cabbages for himsell and other people. He also found it necessary to make frequent, visits to Airs Wall's house when Mrs Strang -was there "to -attend to the plumbing—to clear the sink and so on." Mrs Wall had told them that Hunt followed them home the same afternoon that Jie was introduced to Mrs Strang, anc? had afternoon tea with, them. The'same mght he took Mrs Strang ' oui',' :md he told Mrs A\ all that it was n ca-o of Jove at first sight. Alter this, Hunt made ircquent visits, to .Mis, Wall's house. True he intj-odiicecl»JUr& Ha-txu" to his wilo alter he had known j, e r tor some little tune. Jt was necess.irv tor him to do this in order to allav suspicion Mrs .Hunt had done her best in the witness box to shield Lethusband; but wa.s over a some, spectacle seen m a court of justice taan poor AJ.s Hunt trying t,o bhlM ,™ husband when she knew he had been false to her? And endeavouring to make the jury beheve 'she and Mrt Strang were best of fuends, when L » fact they were bitterest enemies? Mr , t-ianloii went on to refer to die fn, that the evidence of the men who ffi ill honr , S ?. UJ ? IrS S V an «' s h °™ S all ho.i, oi the day and night had no'o been shaken in the slightest; ?be M: What did Hunt go thV© for? Did ho eo there to pray, or to grow cabbages.-' No, he wont to. do the most guevous wrong that one man could do to another. What explanation could any man give when found sitting in a woman s bedroom no 1] o'clock at night i 3 Theie -was oulv one explanation Hunt told them that he went to ,111 - house to friteh his wric home; hut ol a, 1 the witnesses who had seen Hunt going to or coming from the house not one had ever seen Mrs Hunt corahs" Irom the house with her husband. Mr /Vipers had lold them |&o look through the atmosphere ol' oomedv in the case, and deal with it in a calm', judicial way. That was proeisolv what he (Mr rTanlon) "anted ihem to <lo Tliis was not a (omedv. .ind 'the only humour that ho bad seen it was in [ho p ool . ] la u; nK cx . tii'-os of the iosi,nndeut and the 00-re-snondonl. No Jhm alrncty was mor.« U.imnanli. ,l un the anion of this man

in going 'inito the home of a soldier while | the lalter was away fighting for him, > and robbing him of his wife. H had been fully proved that Hunt had no lack of opportunity jor visiting Mrs Strang, and/thalo tie-had.Mken lull advantage of these opportunities: With regard to the Trafalgar Street firr incident, counsel said Ihb- "little tick"' in. the Fire Brigade's book, marking Hunt, present counted for nlothing, as the seeiet&ry to the Fire B'-igade had told ihem that any member of the Brigade could get this "little tick - ' by" simply; f-aying thait ho was present. Strang" had admitted her gui'ty hi™ had gone nto the witness box ju an atfomnt to -ave Hiynt from heius: mult-Vd in dnui- ( 'Pes. The two arr-h-criminals in the ,-ase.h.id the stroncresc of reasons for wpatfne a pack of lies. Tliev could no,; find n, s'nglo flaw in the evidence against ' tiiem.- so'conterfted themselves liy deolarinp ithat this' evidence was a ] l false. Hut they could not live a"v iustiflcarion for this decoration given -hy Hunt for visiting tho house " wore excuses and nothing else. No heed should be maid to them If ilmv believed Hunt. St meant, that a-'l tho j witnesses for the petitioner had entered 1 : into a, criminal conspiracy ind perjured Themselves, to bring i-uin int<> home of ids Strancr and the home of Jfi-s Hunt. Wou'd the iuri bolievo' that the seven witnesses for the petitioner would do such a thing? Ho had no doubt Ihev would rot. but that thev wnuld come to the enly conclusion which tho evidence wou'd insf:fv, namely, that die pneitiouer's case had b"en verv fullv estfililithod. fimiip tnmmoiit had Won mado concerning his (connsc''p) action in showing thai the respondent Jiad an nleaitimaro child =amo vears ago. H was his dufv to lot> >lho iury know ihi«. in order lo assist them in oomii'-i- in -i inst ver,v,j| . vn £ - f 110 1in(1 11ot f q pTlp o he won 1 '! b" nnwortW o<" n nl?co "t Hnr. _ jMr dealt th° f-uostio'i n-f d.lnia-ges t-n sho-r th"- tl nr f\ wi« nOTliincr ooni-pa.rod with l]-,« lrv, wJiic-h the jjetitionef h n A mfferod The divqrcQ mußb he jgrorj-.ed. and tke .dginaeos muit he naid hv tho wrimg-doer. HT.S HOXOUR, TJP. _ His Honour, in summing up, tcid the jury that they should exercise their common sense founded upon tiieir ex- ' nenence of the world and their knowledge or human naiDure. In oases of this kind it was'necessary to have posiI live proof of guilt. , Usually the evi--1 deuce in such cases was. circumstantial, but it was good evidence, and it was quite; competent for the jurv to find a verdict of guilty on clrcum«taniaat evidence. If the jurv thought that the evidence of Sirs Wall and Airs ftobvm was in accordance With fact, that would be sufficient to justify a veidict For the petitioner The petitioner roh'ed for proof of his case upon a s la rem on t made ■to him by his w iFo and bv The. evidence of othei people. Mi., Wall had told them that when Mrs Strang was living

: .with her tho latter was frequently visited by Hunt, and % should bo remembered that alio hud no end to servo in saying whac was untruo. Mrs Wall j ur.p only told them that Hunt visited '•lns house, but that ho hud gone there luariiing, noon and night, and thait on -'up occasion she had seen him sitting on her bed when. Mrs Strang was in the !.cJ. If this was true, could such conduct be innocent? -It was for the jury to say. If diey (thought such conduct was not compatible with innocence they must find for the petitioner. Miss Wall had also' given evidence indicating guilty relationship between Mrs Sir-rang and Hunt, and so also had Mrs Robson. These three witnesses were not related to the parties, and had no motive in saying what was ndb itrue. Tho jury might think that tho suggestion, of guilt; could not- be drawn from this evidence. ty.it if they did this they would have to ask themselves whether such a conclusion was consistent with common sense, or with their knowledge of human nature. In conjunction wibh ih& evidence of Mrs "'Wall, Miss Wall nnd Mrs Robson, they had to consider the evidence of the men who had seen Hunt going to Mrs Strang's house in LeOreti Street. All these witnesses were disinterested parties, while Hunt and Mrs Strang were decidedly interested parties. " If they accepted nhe evidence of Mrs Strang and Hunt, they must conclude that .the \ytnesses for the petitioner had given jalse evidence. A general defence of innocent relationship bad been set up, and it would be for tho jury to,decide whether they thought 'The evidence justified this. Mrs Hunt hud given evidence to show that she was on intimate terms with Mrs Strang, Tout it was raitlier curious that there was ivj. testimony that Hunt had ever been seen to leave Mrs Strang's house in company with his wife. The jury should consider Idle whole body of the evidence and apply their Common sense to it, bearing in mind that some witnesses were imbinssed while others had the strongest motive for stating whafc was -untrue. Was it likely that a man would visit the wife of anotner man night after night, while the wife's husband was' at the front, without wrong intent ? -It was for the jury to say. His Honour a'so advised the jury as to the damages which should be awarded if they came to the conclusion that the co-respond-ent had seduced the petitioner's wife; iihd he then (submitted the following issues ,for their consideration : (1) Did the respondent, Lilian Straps, commit adultery with the co-respond-ent, 'Wra. Henry Hunt? (2) Didithe co-respondent, Win. Henry Hunt, commit adultery with the respondent, Mian Strang? (3) What damages, if any, is petitionee entitled to? ' - THE VERDICT..' The jury retired.at'4.3o p.m. to consider their verdict. They were given their tea in the jury room at; 6 o clock, and at five minutes to'eight His Honour sent foi them to ask, whether there was any. probability of their agreeing upon a unanimous verdict? The Foremaivsaid there was not, so far ,as he could tell.*-They had arrived at a three-fourths verdict on issues I and 2, but had not yet considered issue -3. • ,i Ri=: Honour said lie could take- a three-fourths verdict after the jury bad been out three hour's, and they" had been out more than thi-pc hours. But the verdict must be on nil tin- issues. The Foreman said that only tHireeP fourths of the jury could consider k iss=ue 3,, as the others' did not' agree with their fmdiiur on issues 1 and 2, and he was in doubt as.to the position under the=e:'circumstances. ■- , . . ,' !His JPloriour told the iury_ to-return ' to v their'toom and consider issue 3. If they could arrive at. a unanimous verdict so much the better, but if they could not do so he would take .a threefourths verdict.The iurv then retired for! the second time and relurupd at 8.3-5 .p.m.,/to say .that they bad arrived a three-fourths verdict/ Jt- was as follows :; — -Answer' to issue I—Yes.1 —Yes. • • -Answer .to issue 2 —Yes., ' \ - Answer to issue «3 —£500.

I Mr Alpers made application for the wifc-s costs, and the co-respondent vas ordered to pay those "also, £4O, plus £ls 15h for tho second day, ' | An ordev wnH miulo for" payment of : the tJsrmnges into Court within n. fort- ; night, and Hlb Honour proposed to giva petitioner the interim custody of j-the child. i Mr Alpers said that the child was a. ■ stranger to the petitioner as he iind been at tho war for four vears and itwas born after he left. He "asked therelore that the mother be allowed custody or the child' in the meantime. Mr Hanlon said this was a perfectly reasonable request, especially as the child was a girl. | His Honour, thereupon agreed to allow the respondent custody of tho child m the meantime, its permanent care to be settled when the decree is made absolute three months*hence. OTHER BUSINESS.' / Probate of the wills of the following deceased persons was granted :—Allan MePherson, TV J. Standen (Ravmond, -Raymond and Campbell}, W. C Furbv and R, Harris (Tripp and Rollestonl. * 1 tc ; r ? of administration were granted m the estate of W. U. Hooper (Mr i-i. A. Jovnt) In the estate of K. F. D. Fen wick, leave to sell real estate was granted (Tripp and Rolleston). P. D. Campbell (Mr W. D. Campbell) ruptcf S dlschar S e from bank! +l -ii Cl t C °? rfc W * s . ad i° u ™ed at 8.30 pm. T,IL- I day ' - I , A " gust 19 > fhen Mr Justice Sim will be present to complete some civil work, Mr Justice Herdman having to eave to-day for Christch , • to attend the Supreme Court there.