DIVORCE SUITS

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 134, 3 December 1929, Page 13

DIVORCE SUITS

QUESTION OF EVIDENCE

Au interesting point regarding the evidence that must be forthcoming before a decree can be granted in an undefended divorce suit based on an allegation of adultery was dealt with by the Chief Justice (the Hon. M. Myers) to-day in an oral judgment in tho case of Hilda Judith Grace Woolcott against Charles Eeadman Woolcott.

When the case was called yesterday, the only evidence given was that of the petitioner, who stated that .her husband had admitted to her that he had committed adultery. A letter written by the respondent was produced in support of the petitioner's statements. His Honour said that the evidence in the case consisted mainly of an admission or confession made in writing by the respondent. It had been held in the case of Wilkie against Wilkie, 1928, N.Z.L.R., that an admission by the respondent, whether written or oral, was not in itself sufficient proof of adultery No authorities were cited by the learned Judge who heard the case in support of the view he had expressed. His Honour said that he had looked into the authorities, and it seemed to him that the view so expressed was not in accordance with those authorities. They showed that if the Court were satisfied that the confession was bona fide, and there was no doubt as to its genuineness and sincerity, a decree should be granted, even although there was no additional evidence. He had had the opportunity of discussing the matter with the learned Judge who heard the case of Wilkie against Wilkie, and he believed the latter concurred in the view he was now expressing. "In the present case," continued his Honour, "it may be said that the confession is not in terms a confession of adultery, but, looking at the allegations in the petition and at the circumstances of the case, as proved by the T 1(l ewt °f the P^itioner, I have no doubt that the confession must be regarded and construed as an admission o± the misconduct alleged. However the ease does not really /depend upon the principle of reliance upon the confession alone. There is another wav of looking at the case. As far as this particular case is concerned, the petitioner s evidence supports and corroborates the confession, but looked at in another way, the petitioner's evidence in itself 1S fairly strong. It has been said in some cases that the uncorroborated evidence of the petitioner should not be acted upon in divorce suits, and a decree given upon that evidence alone. There is no absolute- rule, however, to that effect. There are several cases where a decree has been granted upon the uncorroborated evidence of the petitioner. Even if corroboration were necessary, looking at the case from this- point of view, namely, that the petitioner's evidence is the principal evidence, there is still the confession or the respondent, which is, in my opinion, sufficient corroboration. From either point of view, therefore, I think the Court is amply justified in erantine a decree." .

' A decree nisi, to be moved absolute after three months, was granted. Mr. P.J. O'Began appeared for the petitioner, and Mr. A. B. Sievwright for the respondent.