WOMAN’S AUDACITY SURPRISES JUDGE

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18014, 26 November 1926, Page 7

WOMAN’S AUDACITY SURPRISES JUDGE

SAYS SHE TOLD OBVIOUS LIES. DECREE NISI GRANTED AGAINST HER. “ What surprises me is that she has the audacity to go into the witness-box and tell a story punctuated throughout by obvious lies.” These words were used by Mr Justice Stringer to-day after Ivy Margaret Shaw had given evidence in a divorce case. Her husband, Joseph Shaw, travelling showman, petitioned for divorce from her. He named John Boyd Rutherford, labourer, as corespondent. Mrs Shaw claimed that her husband condoned her misconduct with Rutherford, and, by his conduct, conduced -to it. She said that she stayed with her husband in Australia for seven months being On the move all the time and living in a tent. Mr Hanna (her counsel) : Did >ou sleep on a bed?—No, on the floor, on straw. Did you have blankets?—No. Did you like that life?—l did not. Mrs Shaw continued that her husband said that the best thing she could do was to go back to her people in New Zealand. He came to New Zealand, and, while they were together again, he asked if, in divorce proceedings, the co-respondent had to pay costs or go to gaol. After she lived with Rutherford her husband paid her under £1 a week. From Australia he had sent her £l, 10s and ss. Mr Thomas, for Shaw, produced documents showing that he had paid her much more. He said that Shaw was meticulous in money matters, “and had kept a record of all transactions. Mr Thomas; You wrote to your husband: “ Dear Joe, —I am sorry I didn't write before. . . From your lov

ing wife, Ivy. Kisses.” And you were living with Rutherford, you say. Is is true that Rutherford kept you?— Yes. And he has five children of his own, and does not keep them?—Rutherford’s divorce case is coming on next January. Who is taking the proceedings?—She is, for the children’s sake. “ I am satisfied that the evidence of condonation is insufnicent,” his Honor said. “ There "is no evidence that the husband knew of the condition of things in regard to Rutherford. Even if he did, the ordinary relationship of husband and wife was renewed immediately afterwards. There is n) evidence of her allegation that the condition of his health conduced to her misconduct. She gave a grossly untrue account of the sums she received from him. She is a most unreliable woman in every respect.” Mr Hanna: In view of the evidence it is impossible for me to go further with the case. I am su.prised at some of the evidence she gave. I admit that the defence has failed. His Honor: I am quite sure that no barrister with any respect for himseif would have presented this case if he had known the statements she was about to make in the witness-box. Mr Hanna: lam surprised at the Evidence in regard to maintenance. His Honor: I rule that there is ground for the petition. A decree nisi will be granted, to be made abso lute later. The case was set down for hearing before the Judge and a jury, and the jury was immediately discharged.