EASY DIVORCE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 19933, 31 August 1927, Page 8

EASY DIVORCE

JUDGE BARS THE WAY SAYS COMPLETE EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY. [ Special M Chronlria * SarrJea ] AUCKLAND, Aug. 30. The necessity for complete evidence in divorce suits was emphasised in the Supreme Court to-day by Mr Justice Stringer. Zelmar Iris Ross (Mr Sullivan) petitioned for a decree nisi against Samuel George Ross on the ground of his alleged adultery with a woman unknown. Giving evidence, Mrs Ross said in May last her husband admitted misconduct in September of the previous year. His Honour: How did the conversation arise ! Witness —We were having a quarrel. What about! —About him drinking. He said he didn’t want me, and had been with another woman. Was he drunk!—He had drink in him. “This is not very satisfactory,” said his Honour. “It would be the easiest thing in the world for a man who wanted to get rid of his wife to say ‘I don’t want you,’ and that he had committed misconduct.” Replying to Mr Sulliyan, petitioner said her husband often used to stay o it. all night, saying that he was at a clUb. When she had gone to the club she Lad not found him there. His Honour said he was not prepared to grant a divorce upon a mere admis.sion of misconduct, or the Court would be opening a very easy way to collusion. He would reel - ire collateral circumstances to be proved in order to give some verisimilitude to the admission. Mr Sullivan pointed out that the adultery had been admitted in writing by respondent, but his Honour adjourned the case in order to give further eonsideration to the evidence.