A DRAMATIC SEQUEL.

Press, Volume L, Issue 14985, 4 June 1914, Page 2

A DRAMATIC SEQUEL.

.*. TO A DIVOSCE CASE. 1 . A NEW ZEALANDER CONCERNED. (-"ROM OCII OWN CORHESPONTJENT.. LONDON, April 29. . Grave V-liarges wero made in a case in which the Court of Appeal granted an application for leavo to apply for a ■new trial of a divorce case in which £1000 damages wore awarded again.*c the co-respondent. The suit was that of C.stenoble v. Costeioble and Cloudes ley. and was heard befor* Mr Justice Bin-grave Deano aud a common jury last October. Mr J. B. Matthews now asked their Lordships for leave to move for a dew trial. The petitioner in the suit. Mr Charles Costenoble, was a hairdresser, of Southampton row, London, and on April _7th, 1913, he presented his petition, alleging tho misconduct of his wife on various dates with Mr Cloudesley, tho co-respondent, a gentleman of Card's, who had lately gone to New Zealand. Tho wife, nt tho trial, did not enter an appearance, and filed no answer. Mr Cloudesley, however, entered an appearance, and filed an answer, denying the misconduct charge, /but. having to go out to New Zealand to f'"'sl some business contract, he wenf shortly after he had filed hianswer, aud therefore took no part a* t'"e triil. Mr Cloudesley remained in New Zealand. At the trial the petitioner represent cd. that his wife, down to the tinr when she met Mr Cloudesley, bed bee" a virtuous woman, and Mr Justice Bar grave Deane told the jury that it was a very bad ease, and in the result the j'.i'-y returned a verdict in favour of the petitioner and against Mr Cloudes ley for £1000 damages. Within tho last few days, said 511 Matthews, an extraordinary state o' facts had come to the know.edge of the co-respondent's solicitors. It had transpired that Mrs Costenoble, before she met the co-respondent, was already guilty of misconduct; that sho had "picked up" with a customer who went to the petitioner's shop in March, 1912. and had committed misconduct. In resrect of misconduct with a man named Woolf. the petitioner, counsel alleged, settled his claim for damages against Woolf by the payment by Woolf to him of £16. What counsel wanted was to se-ve, on behalf of Mr Cloudesley, notice of motion for a new trial, notwithstanding that the time for doing so hari expired. Counsel added that he could" not say he was in a position to contest the allegation against Mr Cloudesley. but he hoped to show that the verdict was obtained by perjtft-y, fraud, and by the deception of the Court, and that the damages were grossly excessive Mr. J. Lan Macpherson, on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that their Lordships ought not to entertain the application. It was the fact that misconduct did take place between Mr Cloudesley and the respondent. Mr Cloudesley was a wealthy man, and he submitted that the jury were justified, having regard to the circumstances, in giving the verdict for damages which they had done. The* Master of the Rolls, in giving judgment, said that he and the Lords Justices were of opinion that Mr Cloudesley was entitled to an order giving him leave to enter an application for a new trial, notwithstanding the lapse of time, but he must enter his appeal within seven days, and he must pay the costs of the application. Mr Matthews replied that the application for a now trial would be entered at once. The Master of the Rolls: When tho matter comes up here it must not be assumed that we have expressed any opinion to-day as to what the result of the appeai will be. Mr Matthews: I quite understand that. ■