TRANTER DIVORCE CASE

Hokitika Guardian, 23 July 1925, Page 3

TRANTER DIVORCE CASE

NOVEL POINT BEFORE APPEAL COURT. WEI.LING'iO.V duly I'/. Tiie Court of Appeal was engaged this morning in idle hearing of an appeal against the allowing by Air dus--1 ice Attains of a new trial in the divoree case. Daniel Tranter, of Ciirisiehureli. motor engineer, against Lucy Iranler and dame.- Lamb, ol Sydney, hotel-keeper. 1 lie point involved is a novel one. and entirely without precedent. In Alny last peliioner proceeded for divorce against respondent and co-respon-dent, claiming damages. Part of tile evidence v. as taKen on commission in Sydney, and ill Christchurch only that ol the petitioner and one wit-iie.-s was called. ( ounsel for co-respon-dent admitted adultery, and directed his questions towards showing that 1 la; petitioner and his vile laid L-en on strained relations lor a number of years, due to her uni ait Id ill habits with other men. At the trial it was admitted by petitioner that respondent’s ( undue! on sex era I invasions, and apart from t a respondent. had given rise to the gravest suspicion. The jury brought in a verdn-l for petitioner for £]s(;;| damages. Counsel for co-respon-dent then moved to have the verdict set aside, and a new trial was ordered upon the grounds that I lie damages awarded against, the ro-re-poiideiit were excessive. No previous application of a like nature has been made in this country. At the trial, the Judge. uHoi' hearing counsel, set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial.

Against this order petitioner is now appealing. In order to understand the reason for the Judge's view, il is pointed out that it is established in law that damages given against a co-respondent are purely eoinjiensaLory and not punitive in t heir element.

Mr Sargent and Mr Cousins appeared for appelant. Daniel Tranter, Mr Donnelly tor Lamb, ami Mr Broun for respondent. Lucy iraiiter. Mr Sargent said; This is the first case for a great many years in the British Empire wherein an application has been made lor a new trial on ill- 1 ground merely ol excessive damages, 'this is the first time the Court has ever interfered with a jury estimation of damages. The last case when such was reported is in 1789. I adduce case law to show that Judges never in even extreme circumstances, interfere with the jury’s estimation of damages, even if the Judge is of opinion that merely nominal damages should he given.

Mr Justice Sim: I think you will find Mr Sargent, that modern Judges have mucli more courage.

Mr Sargent: While petitioner was a wav at his work during the day, there is evidence to show that co-respondent was in the habit of visiting the house during the daytime. Also almost im-medialc-ly alter she procured separation she went to Sydney to join Lamb. 1 think reasonable inlcrenee can he drawn that, misconduct had occurred before such separation. Respondent was a headstrong woman, and petitioner a weak man, as is shown by allowing her to go out at night without his knowledge where she was go-

ing. Mr Justice McGregor: There was no provision made in the deed ol separation for her maiutemmee. Mr Sargent : She did not desire any compensation. She was quite able to earn her own living. She was a liarmaid before her marriage, and is at present following that occupation in Sydney. Mr Justice Sim: I think, Mr Sargent. your client should lie quite satislied in getting a divorce without any compensation from a worthless woman like this. 1 would have thought he would have been willing lo have paid the costs of the proceedings ._ You don't go so far as to say that damages can he punitive. Mr Sargent : No. But not necessary compensatory in the sense ol damages for contract. Mr Justice Sim: But is not this a survival of the times when a husband was entitled to the amount at which a wife was to he valued, as in mo ~a-e of the less of a horse or cow f SI;.- at this time was merely a chattel. Mr Sargent: It is submitted tliar there are many different schools ol tnought in which damages could he assessed, and the discrepancy between them 111:1 v he very great. It is submitted that' £ISOO is quite reasonable under the circumstances, and more so considering that ii will be utilised for the maintenance and education ot the child of the marriage. Air Donnelly: Tt is submitted, taking into consideration the nets ol respondent and those of petitioner, h"ih lie fore and after the separation. the jury must have assessed damages on some other ground than a proper principle. Petitioner in cross-examination admits that lie was in Court only tor money. Petitioner, although lie states that lie was as much in love with his wife at the separation as at the time of the marriage, subsequently in evidence states that he did not have any fears for his wife, although she was goju,r to Svdnev with only £2> or F BO iifher pocket, and lie states that alter he- departure he did not worry his head about, her. yet he suWquonrly comes ar co-respondent for £3099. at which sum he values his wife or the loss of her. . Mr TnMice Sim: What sum do you estimate would have been reasonable damage? , Mr Donnelly: I am "ot prepared to

estimate what a jury would have given, your Honour. Mr Justice Sim : T see a great number of crosses at the end of this letter. They are kisses, 1 presume. Mr Sargent: That is so, your Honor. Afr Sargent continued: We are prepared to accept a reduced amount of damages, and I would like an opportunity of discussing the matter with Air Donnelly. Mr Justice Sim: Well, since you are both agreed to the amount, will you leave the estimation of damages to tho Court. Air Sargent: No, your Honor. I would like an opportunity of discussing tiie matter first. The Court reserved its decision.