LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1440, 15 May 1912, Page 9

LAW REPORTS.

THE CONINGHAMS,

WIFE OBTAINS DECREE NISI,

PRIVATE INQUIRY MEN

REMARKS FOR AND AGAINST-

A decree, nisi was granted by Mr. Justice Chapman in the Supremo Court yesterday in the divorce petition-Alice Coninghflm v. Arthur Coningham. Evidence had been heard on the previous day. Mr. P. Levi, with Mr. P. W. Jackson, appeared for the petitioner, while the respondent (Arthur Coningham) appeared in person. When the hearing was resumed yesterday respondent asked for leave to recall Samuel Free, private inquiry agent. His Honour allowed this, but Free was not present.. Respondent, Coningham, in addressing the jury, asked them to remember that ho was penniless, friendless, and alone, while Mrs. Coningham had the assistance of the ablest members of the Bar. He urged the jury to treat with care tho cvidenco of paid spies. Men of that class wero nothing more or less than parasites, and were shot down in the neighbouring States-and very little notice taken of it. Respondent then reviewed the cvidenco at some length, and in conclusion stated that he was fighting the case merely to protect an innocent .woman. . ' . . Mr. Lcvi pointed out to the jury that tho issue was a simple one, viz., whether misconduct had been proved. If toninghain wi«hcd to protect an innocent woman he should Wve called her to give evidence or had her testimony taken clscDuring the'course of his summing tip his Honour referred to the evidenco of private inquiry agents. Juries should always be cautious in accepting evidenco given, by those who were paid. As a rule, however, these cases could only be proved by evidence of this kind. It had to be remembored, moreover, that it was to the interest of tho agent to give reliable evidence. Ho was no doubt dependent for a great deal of his employment on solicitors, and if ho wero found out putting up a false case he would no longer be employed by respectable firms. In a town of this size, where it was known that a man was carrying on this class of business, ho was of course always open to the observation that he was an agent. But thero was also the question as to whether he coiild afford to bo anything but straightforward. In this case it was quite open to the jury to treat Free, as a trustworthy, respectable man. As for the young tradesman, Hazelwood, he had not received a great rate of pay—ls. 6d. an hour—but it was-very often tho case that certain young men saw a little romance in this class of work, and were willing to take a lower rate of pay while serving an .apprenticeship with a private detective. Hazelwood appeared to have been satisfied with award rates. Tho jury retired at 11.50 a.m., with the one question before them as to whether the respondent had been guilty ot misconduct with Mrs: Riman on the dates mentioned in the petition. At. 12.35 p.m. tho jury returned and answered the question in the affirmative. His.Honour said that, as his attention had been drawn to the fact that there was a cross-petition in existence, the best course would be for him to ' make the decree nisi, nnd give instructions for the decree absolute to be moved for in open Court. The Registrar could then inform Die Judgo presiding, whether or not the cross-petition had been brought for hearing. No doubt it would be ready foi hearing before the decree absolute was moved. Divorce petitions were not exercised purely in tne-interests of the sue-

'cessful party/ , "Tho.decree nisi would be made and the Registrar would ba given the direction mentioned. Petitioner was granted interim custody of the children.. WIFE'S COSTS IN DIVORCE. HUSBAND'S LIABILITY. HOW FAR DOES IT EXTEND? Some interesting comments wero made by Mr. Justice Cooper in the Supreme Court yesterday, during the latter portion of tho hearing of the case of Gray and Jackson v. O. Mewhinuey, a claim toi JE252 15s. id., alleged to bo duo for services rendered. The amount was the balance of costs incurred by Mewhinney's wife in divorce proceedings and in certain proceedings subsequent to the decree absolute.

of the claim and defence were published yesterday, the caso having been partly heard on Monday.] Mr. M. Myers appeared for Gray and Jackson, while the defendant (O. Mewhinnev) appeared in person. When the hearing was resumed yesterday, Mowhinney, acting on the suggestion of his Honour, put in a lengthy typewritten statement covering his evidence and his address to the Court. He wag briefly cross-examined by Mr. Myers. While in the box, Mewhinney referred to a statement which he had made on tho previous day, and which might havo been taken to reflect on the Kcgistrar. He had not intended to reflect on the probity of that officer. His Honour accepted the explanation. Mr. Myers also' referred to a matter that had cropped up on tho previous day —tho taxing down of one of Gray and Jackson's bills of costs. Counsel wished to make it clear that tho alteration was not in regard to Gray and Jackson's personal costs, but in regard to witnesses' expenses. His Honour dismissed the nonsuit points raised on (he previous <\cy, without calling on Mr. Myers to reply to them, but ho required to hear counsel on other points that had arisen in tho defence set up. Ho added tliat it was quite clear that the bill, of costs would have to go to taxation, and probably he would have to givo some direction in this respect. During th« course of Mr. Myers s argument, his Honour remarked that it surely seemed to be unjust, and extraordinary to make Mowhinney (when ho was not tlie husband of the woman) responsible for her costs in the Court of Appeal, where she had been declared to be an mint person to havo custody of the children, and had been unsuccessful in her case. There could be no dispute as to defendant's liability up till the time that the decreo nisi had been made absolute, but counsel was going very much further when, after tho Court of Appeal had refused to give costs on either side, no asked that the Supremo Court should order costs against Mewhinney in respect to a matter in which Mrs. Mewhinney had been unsuccessful. . Mr. Myers here pointed out that the question of costs had not been argued '■ before the Court of Appeal. His Honour: As a solicitor has no right to initiate an appeal on benall of a client without a fresh retainer, has he tho right to appear on appeol without a fresh ™ t »"Jt r t! Mr. Myers submitted that he had that U ]|is Honour remarked that the bond dissolved between the parties when t!if decree uW was made absolute, and it .seemed to him to be tin injustice to make u peraon, who was not responsible iiav the costs of the proceedings in which "Mrs. Jlewhioney was tho unsuccessful party. "I am not suggesting- any impropriety at all on the part of the pluintiir." continued his Honour. 'It is i pure question as- to whore the liabilitv of a person rra=e.=. It does seem ■i hard-hip to make Mewhinney pay those partieulnr costs in an action where the .other was held to be unfit to take charge nf her children on account of the linpronriety of her conduct." \(r Mvers submitted with all respect that 'Gray and .Tackson were entitled to the costs' claimed, but, in view of K.hnt his Honour had said, he was authorised v Mr. Gray to say that they (Gray nnd Jackson) would not press for the costs of the Coutt of Appeal proceedings. His Honour then Rftve judgment for plaintiffs, the bill of cosU lo b<; relerrcd to the Kwstrar for taxation up to Hie making and taking out of the order* of f me £ 1010. Mid anything tins.ne there from, but excluding the costs ot l.hn npwnl. the parties to hnve tho ordinary right of review of the Kcwtrar < law- ■ 'flip fi'iestion of cost? of tho present action was reserved*