OPPOSITION RAISED BY INTERVENOR

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 55, 20 March 1937, Page 5

OPPOSITION RAISED BY INTERVENOR

-Presa Asbb

CoIIusion Story Shown to Be Only Rumour ALLEGATI0NS UNTRUE

(By Teiegraph-

i.— Copyright.)

(Received 20, 11.55 a.m.) LONDON, March 19. There was a tense atmosphere in the crowded Court when the President of the Probate and Divorce division, Sir Boyd Merriman, entered to hear the application hy the King's Proctor in the Simpson divorce case. The Attorney General," Sir Donald Somervell, immediately said: "I appear with Mr. Clifford Mortimer on hehalf of the King's Proctor. This is an undefended divorce case in which the .wlfe was petitioner. She obtained at the Ipswlch Assizes on Octoher 27, 1936, a decree nisi on the groimds of the respondent's, Mr. •Ernesfc Simpson's, adultery with a woman at the Hotel de Paris, Bray, on July 21-22 last year. The trial was fixed at Ipswich hy order of the Reglstrar on the application of the petitioner supported hy an affidavit from her solicitor that, when the Ipswich Assizes were held, the petitioner would he residing at Eeech House, Felixstowe. Sir Donald informed the Court that the King's Proctor was now applylng for directions in the case, and that the King's Proctor's inquiries into the case had not resulted in the production of any evidence justifying intervention. The Attorney-General said that Mr. O Francis Stephenson had intervened on December 0 alleging in the notice of appearance that he proposed to show cause why the decree nisi should not be made absolute owing to material facts not disclosed to the Court or owing to the decree having been obtained by collusion. Mr. Stephenson 's appearance was notified to the petitioner 's solicitors on December 10. Mr, v Stephenson did not take a further step until December 14, when he sent a letter to the petitioner 's solicitors that he did not intend to flle affidavits or groceed further. The Attorney-General added: "As I understand it, the decree niai cannot be made absolute as long as the intervener's appearance xemains on the fiie." He continued: "Your Lordship on January 16 directed that the King's Proctor's notice should be drawn to the intervention, which you requested should be investigated." Sir Donald then read the letter the King's Proctor had received from the Senior Registrar, which was the basis on which he appearecL This said: "I am directed by the President to bring to your notice the intervention of Mr. Francis Stephenson in the suit Simpson v. Simpson and request you to assist him by an°investigation. I enclosa a copy of the appearance which the intervenor has entered. The President desires me to call your attention to the Matrimonial Causes, rule 52, under which an intervenor is required within four days of entering an appearance to file affidavits setting forth the facts on which he relies. This intervenor has not filed any affidavits. "You will appreciate by Matrimonial Cause rule 56 that a decree absolute cannot be pronouneed as long as this appearance remains on the record and, after the completion of your investigatiou, it will, of course, be open to you to apply for directions as to the manner in which the appearance shonld be dealt with either, alone or in conjunction with such investigation as you may be making independently. The President is anxious to hear any application on this suit in open Court." Sir Donald proceeded: "Your Worship may have thought it possible that Mr Stephenson, when he intervened, had information or available evidence but deeided not to proceed for considerations irrelevant to the administration of iustice. The King's Proctor

saw Mr Stevenson, who star,ed what the grounds of the intervention wereThese, I think, were stated in the document that the suit was collusive and the petitioner's conduct disentitled hei to divorco unless the Court exercised discretion in her favour. "Mr. Stephenson, however, told the King's Proctor that he did not possess evidence to support his allegations, which were hased on rmnours he had heard from friends and things he had seen in the newspapers." Sir Donald added: "Sir Frances further informed the King's Proctor that, in view of the events in December, 1936, which are now matters of history, he had deeided to withdraw the intervention. "It is rigkt, therefore, to say that he has deeided not to proceed for considerations irrelevant to the administration of justiee; on the contrary, it equally appears that lu* has no evidence to support intervention. "I thought it right 10 appear myself, chiefly because the King's Proctor, who investigates such matters and interrenes in accordanco with directions,

has received a number of letters aileg ing or suggjesting that pressux© ha# been brought upon him or me to refrain from bringing before the Court any evidence which might be for th.coming or which was, in my opinioa. proper to be brought here. There ii no truth in either allegation. "For some time before Your Lord* ship's reference to Mr Stevenson's in* tervention, the King's Proctor, in ao* cordance with his ordinaxy duties, hadL been thoroughly investigating the case^ in which w© had three matters in mind: First, whether there was collu* sion; eecondly, whether the petitioner was accessory or connived as the res-» pondent's adultery; thirdly, whethel} the petitioner's conduct disentitled hej; to relief. "The King's Proctor's inquiries intoj all aspects of the case, ineluding thei intervenor 's points, have not resulted in any evidence justifying me in dii rectiag intervention. I therefore apply, for directions. In these circumstances-, as far as intervention is concerned, whieh is the matter particularly before Your Lordships, it is quite fair' to say, that we have not the grounds on whiclr we could resist the application for ro. moval of that intervention." The President asked if Mr. Stepheni son was present, upon which a middle* aged pian rose, 8 ' The President asked If he cared to address the Court, and Mr. Ste* phenson said: "I would like ta, say that the facts put hy the At-j toraey-General are suhstantially] correct. Tihat applies to any stepa taken hy me or anything; that may/ have. been said, hut I adhere to "my decision to withdraw and consent to any order the Court may make.'"' The President asked whether Mr» Norman Birkett, K.C., representing Mrs Simpson, had anything to say. Mr. Birkett: Having heard the 3etails of the Attorney-General 's statecnent for the fixst time, I welcome the full and comprehensive statement the Court has received, which must do good4 as it is impossibie for a petitioner to deal with xumours, gossip and allega-> tions of pressure. The President, giving his decision, said: "The Atforney-General has stat^ ed that there was no evidence availt able of collusion or non-disclosure of material facts at the original hearingj That phrase covers alL the possible bars to obtaining a divorce." He then asked if Mt. Stephenson wai prepared to have the matter dealt with, immediately. Mr. Stephenson replied in the affirmative, whereupon Mr. Birkett asked that the appearance be struck out. The President consented, and the proceedings concluded.