DIVORCE CASES

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 23972, 12 June 1943, Page 6

DIVORCE CASES

PETITION DISMISSED “LACK OF FRANKNESS IN EVIDENCE ” There was an unexpected development in the Supreme Court in Christchurch yesterday In a divorce action before Mr Justice Northcroft, A witness in a suit on the ground of adultery refused to testify that he had actually seen the respondent and co-respondent in compromising circumstances in a house in Sherborne street, Christchurch. His Honour commented upon the lack of frankness in the evidence of the petitioner. Edward Tolhurst, truck driver. The respondent was Joan Mary Tolhurst, of Christchurch, and Alexander Mathieson McKay, soldier, of Blenheim, was joined as co-respondent. The petition was dismissed. Tolhurst stated that he married the respondent at Christchurch on May 29, 1941. There were no children of the union. They separated the following July, and the petitioner subsequently served overseas. He said that he became suspicious of his wife’s conduct last year, and, with 1 a witness, had found her in a house in Sherborne street at night with the co-respondent. As, however, this witness had gone overseas with the forces, he had been unable to obtain his evidence for a divorce suit on that occasion. Tolhurst then explained how he had gone to the house again on January 18 last. He was accompanied on that occasion by Bartlett Ball. He opened a window, and after flashing a torch, had found his wife and McKay in bed. Ball, a young railways employee, was called to give corroborative evidence. He stated that there was no light switched on on that occasion, and though he heard the voices of a man and woman, he did not see either. Tolhurst, he added, went to the door and spoke to the parties, and not to the window as stated. Mr C. V. Quigley (for petitioner): This is not the statement that you gave me in my office. Witness: I told you on the telephone last night that I did not intend to give that statement. Mr Quigley (to his Honour): The turn -that this case has taken, sir, has surprised me very much. "ft has surprised me, too,” commented his Honour. When dismissing the petition his Honour said he was satisfied that, in all probability, adultery had been committed in that house, but he was not satisfied with the evidence. "I am also persuaded that your client has not been entirely frank,’’ he added. "The petitioner thought that he would be supported by statements that were also not entirely frank, I am satisfied that Ball was not satisfied to put himself in the position of being a perjurer.’’ His Honour added that there was no reflection upon Mr, Quigley's conduct of tire case, nor upon him professionally. Other Cases Albert Phillip Fluerty, aircraftsman, succeeded in his petition against Lilas Annie Fluerty on the ground of her adultery with Harold McAlister, who was named as co-respondent. Mr K. M. Gresson appeared in support of the petition. The question of the custody of the children was reserved. Costs were awarded against the co-respondent. A decree nisi was also granted to Archie Chapman, returned soldier. of Auckland. orchis petition against Mabel Rose Chapman, of Pigeon Bay. on the ground of separation. The parties were married at Christchurch on September 4, 1929. and there were no children of the marriage. They parted in 1937, and had not lived together since. Mr C. V. Quigley appeared for the petitioner. Mary Teresa Taylor Gillespie (Mr C. V. Quigley) petitioned for the dissolution of her marriage with Edward Gillespie, hotel porter, on the ground of desertion. The parties were married at Timaru on September C, 1926, and there was one child of the maniage. Petitioner stated that her husband had deserted her in 1927. A decree nisi returnable in three months was pronounced.