COURT OF APPEAL

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 74, Issue 244, 15 October 1931, Page 7

COURT OF APPEAL

A NEW PLYMOUTH DIVORCE. [ Per Press Association. 1 WELLINGTON, Oct. 14. An appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Adams and tho granting of a ’new trial in tho divorce cnso of Harold Ncaves Austin, *of ‘Now Plymouth, against Violet Eliza Austin and William James Newell, also of New Plymouth, came before the Court of Appeal to-day, the appeal being taken in forma pauperis. The facts leading to the appeal were: In September of last year Austin filed a petition for divorce from his wife on tho grounds of adultery, naming Newell as co-respondent. At tho trial evidence as to adultery was given by Ada Riley (sister of Mrs Austin), and Wm. Edward Walker. Both respondent and co-respondent strenuously denied misconduct, and evidence contrary to that for the petitioner was given by other persons living in the same house as Newell and A£rs Austin. Tho jury, however, found for petitioner and a decree nisi was made.

Later, on an application for a new trial, Mr. Justice Adams hold tho verdict to bo against the weight of evidence, and ordered a new trial. Tho appeal was originally set down for hearing at the last sitting of tho Court of Appeal, but prior to tho dite of hearing affidavits made by Mins Riley and Walker were filed, in which they stated that the evidence given by thorn in the Court below was entirely false. In view of this fact the hearing was adjourned until to-day. In tho meantime both Riley and Walker had boon prosecuted for perjury, Walker being sentenced at New Plymouth to 12 months’ hard labour and Riley being ordered to come up for sentence if called upon at any time during tho next two years. On the Bench were Judges Reed, Ostler and Smith.

ADMISSION OF AFFIDAVITS [ Per Press Association. ] WELLINGTON, Oct. 14. When tho Appeal Court case Austin v. Austin opened Mr Crookcr asked leave to read to the Court affidavits made by Ridley and Walker to tho effect that their evidence in the court bclow r was false.

Mr Cooke, for ’appellant, opposed leave being granted. He submitted that even if the affidavits were read and clearly established perjury in tho court belew, which ho submitted they lid not, they would be no use to the Court as tho proper course for respondents to show that thero was actually perjury. If they alleged it the question arose: Where was the perjury? Was it in tho evidence given at tho trial or in the affidavits made subsequently thereto? It was extremely probable that the evidence given at the trial was correct and that the statements in the affidavits, when deponents had not been open to cross-exam-ination, were false.

After Mr Crookcr had addressed the Court again the Court . r -aid that it was of opinion tho affidavits should be read and admitted as evidence. The Court then adjourned until tomorrow.