BEAN V. BEAN.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 11504, 28 September 1915, Page 5

BEAN V. BEAN.

THE FENDALTCN DIVORCE CASE. DECREE MSI GRANTED.. CASE AGAINST KING THOMPSON DNFROTED. Mr A. H. Holmes, Registrar of the Supremo Court, in his rooms this morning, read a judgment by his Honor Mi- Justice Chapman in the petition tor divorce brought by George \ inrent Bean, of lendalton, again&t Annie Jane Beau, in which Robert King Thompson was en-respondent. Mr 0. T. ,1. Alpers appeared for tho petitioner, Mr M. J. Gresson for the respondent, and Mr A. Bishop for the co-respondent. The judgment is a very long one, taking up twenty-three pages of typewriting, and it took the Registrar three-quarters of an hour to read it. The petitioner alleged adultery between April 2 and June 20, 1915, stating that there were clandestine meetings on certain dates. Before the trial finished, he applied for an amendment of the petition, alleging adultery at different unspecified dates extending over the term covered by the evidence going back to .January. This amendment was granted without objection by the respondent. He did not profess to be able to specify any' day on which adultery was committed, but relied on proof of a continuous adulterous connection between the dates mentioned. The respondent denied the whole charge, and added tho defence that if adultery was proved it was condoned. Tho co-respondeut denied the charges. His Honor went into details of the evidence at great length, and said that for several reasons it seemed to him that Bean was more likely to be speaking the truth about tho connubial relations than his wife was. It seemed to him improbable that a man of his disposition would remain in a state of sulks as describe* for four months over a trifling misunderstanding, followed, according to Mrs Bean's version, by a few words not really {•.mounting to a Quarrel, and it seemed equally improbable that he resumed connubial relations and continued them to the date mentioned in the faco of what was happening during the month of June. Regarding the alleged meeting between Mrs Bean and the co-respondent on July 1, his Honor said a gre\t deal of evidence was called from the office where Thompson worked to provo that owing to the state of the work at that period of tho month, Thompson cou'd not have been away at the hour claimed by witnesses who spoke to that. No doubt they made out a strong case, but they were recalling the matter two months after the event, and he could not say the alibi they were called to prove was made out conclusively. THE NEIGHBOURS' CONVERSATIONS. In regard to conversations Mrs Bean was said to have had with Mrs Stevens and Mrs his Honor said that if tlioso conversations and others referred to by Mrs; Stevens took place they showed, that Mrs Bean's infatuation for Thompson had gone so far that in tho presence of neighbours who would listen she could not help talking of him. The three last quoted conversations with Mrs Stevens went much further. One of them at least came near to a confession of adultery. A confession, however, had not always a higher value than tin incidental admission. In many crises it had a lower value, as it mie'it be .made with a motive which could seldom be said of a mere conversation in which something incriminating was said. OTHER EVIDENCE. The evidence of Taylor coincided with that of Mi's Stevens at three important point*. There was no suggestion that they met and concocted these coincidences or even that they were on any terms of intimacy. ''Taking the evidence of Taylor, Mrs Stevens and Mrs Dyer," said his Honor, ''it becomes evident- that if they are concocting their various stories of meetings and admissions the only way to account for the coincidences is to assume either that they lnivo conspired to ruin Mrs Bean or that Bean has in some way procured all those throe unrelated and apparently respectable people to learn parts concocted by him and to make their respective parts harmonise. That such a vile conspiracy should be organised by a man who is at work all the week, that he should import into it a man willing to play the part assigned to Taylor is very strong thing to suggest. But that he should succeed m enlisting two married women living in their own households, that he should succeed in, so indoctrinating 3lrs Stevens that sho should tell her long, garrulous tale of go -sip without failing at any point, and that Mrs Dyer, almost. a stranger, who, I must say, impressed me as a respectable and .intelligent woman merely narrating what had occurred, should have been induced to play so vile a patrt to ruin a. harmless neighbour is most difficult t;> believe. J can find tin reason myaeii' for suggesting thai, they have made themselves willing tools to suit Bean's purposes, liov do 1 look upon Bean as a man cither of the ability or the inclination to construct and carry out such' a project. To construct and carrv out wbh the aid of others sucn a. rnjK'orterl plan \\o:ud 'require no small ability and would call for more than ordinary cunning to avoid ids witling tools betraying bim. I cannot conceive that IW.n possesses 1 either that quality or the power to impose such a concoction upon others in such a, degree as to make a .Sucre's of so elaborate ; i plan. " I attach considerable importance i r Mrs .Beau's : ttempt- to depreciate Mrs Dyer's, evidence, and finding that >h v is capable of do nig tins by tray of geiting rid oi cvic.ence winch sue cannot exolain. obi'g-es me to weigh her testimony against that of her husband. T see no reason, after applying the Vsts furnished by the evidence, iw disbelieving ids statements as to their ; oni• ni>m 1 ! 'cialions. laking llus ad-ini-.y.ons oi tho respondent, together v, ith ihc petitioner's evidence and •tie corroborative c.roiimstnncos 1 hold that thev leave open no other rational conclusion than that she formed an adulterous con met ion between tho dates

mentioned in_ the petition and pronounce accordingly, and I further hold that there lias been 110 condonation." - THE CO-RF/SPONDEX T. With respect to the co-respondent, his Honor said that the evidence stood on a somewhat different footing. To his mind, it was inconclusive. That might seem, to those unaccustomed to" 1 consider such matters, to be a conclusion inconsistent with that which he had already formed; but that was not so. From the initiation of the divorce law in England, more than sixty years ago, that most eminent of judges, Sir Greswell Cromwell, found himself obliged in some cases to hold that there was conclusive evidence .against a respondent, while there was'none against the co-respondent. A confession by the respondent for instance, if believed by the Court, might prove the case against her, while it was as against the corespondent a mere unsworn statement not having tho value of evidence. Juries had repeatedly found themselves 1 in the same position. An historical instance of the sort was the case in! which Sir Charles Dilke was co-respon-dent. There was a. confession by the respondent which implicated tho corespondent. Thero was 110 other evidence, net even a denial, as Sir Charles did not go into the witness-box, b-at the Court believed' the confession and pronounced a decree dissolving the marriage but dismissing the suit against Sir Charles. Similar consideration?) arose in a criminal case in which the true issue really was not whether the prisoner was guilty or not guilty, but whether or not he was proved by legal evidence to be guilty. His accomplice might have confessed to his own guilt and the prisoner's, but that did not bind anyone but the person so confessing, unless it took the form' of sworn evidence. Ho had, therefore, to endeavour entirely to j>ut out of sight Mrs Bean's conversations when considering the evidence against Thompson. He was satisfied that, _ without the support of those conversations, the petitioner could net have proved his case. He would then have had the evidence of the kissing a,t the gate — an act of grave indiscretion inconclusivel in itself-—and lie would have lia-d, the two visits of Thompson to the house and the meeting in the street. The meeting at Sparks's Bridge would have, to be treated as unproved. He was satisfied that ho could not- bare.' held that the two proved clandestine meetings, at only one of which -con l<i' it be suggested that adultery might have beell committed, were sufficient to enable the Court to say that no other conclusion was open to it than that adultery had been committed. Not only was he .satisfied that such evidence would not have sufficed, but he might add that he was satisfied that if the petitioner had had no more than those bare facts to rely on he would never have been advised to present a petition. Ho therefore, held that the case against Thompson was unproved, but as Thompson had, by his indiscretion, brought that upon himself, he did not order'the petitioner to pay Thompson's costs. He therefore pronounced the decree nisi against tlie respondent, to be moved absolute after three months. THE CHTLDR EX. As to the custody of the children, the petition could stand over until some convenient date, to be arranged' with the uarties, and in tho meantime he expected the petitioner to allow the respondent reasonable facilities for seeing them. COSTS. . The respondent would have her costs against the petitioner. If the amount gave rise to any difficulty he would attend ».nd settle that.