THE KEMPTON DIVORCE.

Gisborne Times, Volume VII, Issue 436, 7 June 1902, Page 2

THE KEMPTON DIVORCE.

A SHAMELESS WOMAN. PECULIAR TURN OF THE CASE. By Telegraph—Press Association. Invercargill, last night. The Kempton divorce suit took a peculiar turn to-day. The evidence for the petitioner was continued. Mr Myers, of the coffee palace, Dunedin, was offered as a witness regarding the respondent and co-respondent staying there as Mr and Mrs Brown, but as the ontrios in tho books produced were not original, and not made by him, the Court would not hear him. Mr W. Y. H. Hall, for co-respondent, submitted that no evidence against him had been tendered. Mr Neave, for petitioner, said that the only evidence against co-respondent was his admission to petitioner that the corespondent and respondent stayed together at the coffee palace, and that the corespondent represented to petitioner that his (Borne’s) wife was also there. This petitioner found to be untrue. His Honor : And you ask me to find on that- ground that co-respondent committed adultery with respondent on tho night of tho marriage. However suspicious the circumstances might bo, do you think that there is evidence to go to a jury ? It came simply to this, that co-respondent took an active part in having tho girl married to petitioner ; respondent and corespondent were stopping at the coffee palace, and the co-respondent deceived petitioner by saying that his (Borne’s) wife was there. Apart from this there was no evidence at all against co-respon-dent. If petitioner had proved that the co-respondent spent the night with respondent he would have strengthened his case, but on the evidence the petitioner asked the jury to find that this man committed adultery because he deceived petitioner as to his own wife being at the coffee palace. This would be a tremendous jump ; petitioner had not shown that there were ever any improper relations between his wife and Borne. On the evidence Borne might have been purely a philanthropist, anxious to see the girl properly married.

Mr Neave : X will consent so far as corespondent is concerned. His Honor said that against the woman there was absolutely a strong prima facie case. There was the clear evidence of her admissions, which, however, were not evidence against 'co-respondent. If respondent had chosen to advert to her statements, and had gone into the box and sworn to them, that would have been evidence against her and co-respondent. She had not gone into the box, and was not a compellable witness. After considering the case against co-respondent they would have to deal with a totally different statement of facts in the. case of the respondent. Had petitioner proved that on the night of marriage Borne passed the night with a woman it would have been different, but on the present evidence the jury would not be entitled to find a verdict against him, notwithstanding the suspicion. After coming to the conclusion that there was no evidence to go the jury against the co-respondent it left a very absurd result. From one point of view it would have been found that Borne did commit adultery with the respondent, and then the jury might find that she committal adultery with Borne. It was anomalous, but the evidence against one was not evidence against the other. The case was analagous to the well-known English case, Crawford v. Crawford, and Dilke.

His Honor then dismissed Borne from the case, on the ground that there was no evidence of the adultery alleged against him.

In regard to the case against the respondent, Mr Macalister said that he did not propose to call any evidence, and did not address the jury. His Honor said that respondent, having lent her assistance in the matter of getting rid of co-respondent, had, of course, abandoned the defence suggested in her affidavit. His Honor said that had the case come to a question of damages he would have had to point out that petitioner’s whole interest since marriage had been to get rid of his wife. The jury would have had to say what compensation he would have been entitled to for the loss of hie wife. It was extraordinary that he should have brought, or been allowed to bring, an action for damages. The petition for divorce was uncontradicted, and if the jury believed the petitioner’s story they would bring in a verdict for him. The jury’ retired at 3.25, and returned at 3.35 with the unanimous opinion that respondent committed adultery with corespondent on the night of marriage. His Honor granted a decree nisi.