ADULTERY PROVED

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 35, 11 February 1933, Page 8

ADULTERY PROVED

DECEEES NISI MADE

END OF DIVORCE SUITS

Twb questions were put to the jury at the conclusion of the evidence in the Supreme Court yes'x-uay afternoon in the proceedings, lasting two days, in which, on allegations of adultery, Margaret Jean Gunter petitioned for a divorce from William Gunter and Sidney Alexander Johnson petitioned for a divorce from Alice Maud Johnson, citing Gunter as the co-respondent.- The questions were: (1) Did Alice Maud Johnson commit adultery, with William Gunter? and (2) did William Gunter commit adultery with Alice Maud Johnson? Afte^ a retirement of just under half an'hour, the jury answered each of the questions "yes." Counsel for the two petitioners thereupon moved for ,a decree nisi in each case, which, was'entered by the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers. His Honour also made an order as to the payment of costs, and, in the Johnson case gave interim custody. of the two children of the marriage to the petitioner. ■ ■ Mr. W. Perry appeared for the petitioners and Mr. P. Levi, with Mr. J. B. Yaldwyn, for Mrs., Johnson and .Gunter. William Gunter, Government messenger and custodian of the Customs buildings continued his evidence after "The .Post1 * went to press yesterday afternoon. '•..'.' .. Replying to a question from the Bench, witness said he told his wife before he left her on sth July last that he loved Mrs. Johnson and had promised to stick to her. ' 1 To his counsel, Gunter denied that he. had come home one day and told his wife that he had got into a mess with Mrs. ' Johnson—that she had left her husband. There had never,at any time been '.any' improper relation's between him and Mrs. Johnson. - ' ; Replying to the Chief Justice, Gunter said that as far as he knew he •would say, definitely he Tvas not the cause of any trouble' between Johnson and his wife/". ' ' ''■/■■■•■ .'■'. "His Honourasked witness why, tinder air the circumstances, he .should go to live at the same boarding-house as Mrs. Johnson. jGuriter's reply was that he went to Vivian street because he knew Mr. Leonard,' the.owner of the house, and did riot know anyone'else who kept a boarding-house. '. • '■'•■' Counsel addressed the jury after which tie1 Chief Justice summed up. In explaining to the jury the reasons for the two issues, his Honour said there was.somei evidence against one of the respondents -which, "was not evidence against the other. It appeared toi him, however, that under'the circumstances of the case Mrs.; Johnson and-Gunter sank or swam together. His Honour examined the, marriage ,certificates of the parties and suggested to' the jury that.the disparity of 15 years between the ages ■of Mrs. Guhter -and - Gunter might account for something. ■'The jury had to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the. allegations of adultery had been proved; before; finding for the petitioners. -During the hearing ■' his Honour said he had found ilt • necessary to ask what perhaps were f requfent questions, but_ it was f or the jury to'say what significance .was to be attached to the answers and the various facts that had ibe6n placed before' theiru '■ ■ ■ < ■The jury Tetired at 14.40 pirn, and returned with their verdict at 5.1 p.m. •