DIVORCE SUIT.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXIII, 23 March 1927, Page 5

DIVORCE SUIT.

NEW TRIAL ASKED FOR. By Telegraoh—Press Association. WELLINGTON, March 21. fhe Court of Appeal this allernoon took the case Orbcll v. Orbed and Mossman. This case came betore Mr Justice Ostler and a common jury of uveive on November 12 and 13, 1926, up Napier. The facts are that Walter Austin. OrbeM. of Te Putere, near Wairoa, Hawke’s Bay, fanner, 23 years of ago, »va s married to Mary Orbell in September, 1923. Mrs Orbell is twenty-four years of age, and there are two children. In April, 1924, the Orbelis bought property from Henry Albert Mossman, a money-lender, who was a frequent visitors of theirs. Difficulties arose and finally Orhell filed a petition for divorce on the ground that his wife had committed adulterv with Mossman in June, 1925. at Orbell’s house in Te Putere. Petitioner also claimed £2OOO damages. The jury found co-respondent guilty of adultery and awarded £1250 damages. Co-respondent later moved the Court for a new trial on the ground that material evidence had been found since, which could not have been foreseen or known before the trial, that th? petition in divorce was filed m collusion with respondent for the purpose of obtaining damages, and that respondent is a. woman of loose enaractcl' and therefore not worth the heavy damages awarded.

j Several affidavits were filed in sup- | port of the motion, anil Mr Justice Ostler said that if the fresh evidence was true then the verdict was a miscarriage of justice and that “if accepted as true by the jury they must, having regard to their oaths, come to a different conclusion from that arrived at by the jury at the first trial, therefore! feel'that justice demands that I shou'd grant a new trial,” and a new trial was ordered accordingly. Orbell now appeals against this order. Co-respondent, who moved for a new trial, had' fi'cd a number of affidavits <iv witnesses who alleged Mr Orhell had threatened to “frame up” a case to get at Mossman. Air von, Hanst. for appellant said that the affidavits were not on th" face of them credible, that they were contradicted by other affidavits and that even if the affidavits were true they had to be considered together with the evidence produced at the trial. nnc! when so considered d : d not sufficiently ovenve ; gh it ns to entitle a new trial The idea that the whole ease wn = “framed up.” Mr von Hanst contended, i was absurd on the face of it, having regard to the aff davits. No affidavit could override the fact that Mrs Orbed. herself, confessed to the charge in Court. No woman would go through that indignity merely for the sake of her husband winivng a doubtful sum in damages involving, as it did, Hie breaking W of the who’c home. Mr von Haasf.' cone udej his ni gument and Mr Gray. K.C., opened the case for the co-respondent. The case was adjourned till to-mor-row. _