DIVORCE APPEAL

Hokitika Guardian, 23 March 1927, Page 4

DIVORCE APPEAL

APPLICATION FOR NEW TRIAI WELLINGTON. March 21.

The Court of Appeal this afternoon took the ease Orhell v. Orbell and Alossman. This case came before Air Justice Ostler .and a common jury of twelve on November 12 and 13, 1926, at Napier. The facts arc that Walter Austin Orhell, of To Putere, near Wairoa, Hawke’s Bay, farmer 23 years of 'age, was married to Alary Orhell in September, 1923. Airs Orhell is twenty-four years of age, and there are two children. In April, 1924, the Orbells bought property from Henry Albert Alossman, a money-lender, who was U frequent visitor of theirs. Difficulties arose and finally Orhell filed a petition for divorce on the ground that his wife had committed adultery with Alossman in Juiie. 1925, at Orbed's bouse in To Putere. Petitioner also claimed £2090 damages. The jury found co-respond-ent guilty of adultery and awarded ;£1250 damages. Co-respondent Inter moved the Court for a new trial on the ground that material evidence had been found since which could not Rave been foreseen or known before the trial, that the petition in divorce was filed in collusion with respondent for the purpose of obtaining damages, and that respondent is a woman of loose character and therefore not wfortli the heavy damages awarded. Several affidavits were filed in support of the motion, and Air Justice Ostler said that' if the fresh evidence was true then the verdict was a miscarriage of justice and that “if accepted as true lay the jury they must, having regard to their oaths, come to a different conclusion from that arrived at 'by the jury at the first trial, therefore I feel that justice demands that I should ghaut a new trial,” and a new trial was ordered accordingly, Orhell now appeals against this order. Co-respondent, who moved for a new trial, had filed a number of affidavits by witnesses who alleged Air Orbell had threatened to “frame up” a ease to get at Alossman. Air von Haast, for appellant, sain that the affidavits were not oil the face of them credible, that they were contradicted by other affidavits and that even if the affidavits were true they had to be considered with the evidence produced at the trial, and when so considered did not sufficiently overweigh it as to entitle a new trial. The idea that the whole case was “framed,up,” Air von Haast contended, was absurd on the face of it having regard to the affidavits. No affidavit could override the fact that Airs Orbell herself, confessed to the charge in Court. No woman would go through that indignity merely for the sake of her husband winning a doubtful sum in damages involving, as it did. the breaking up of the whole home.

Air von Haast concluded his argument and AH' Gray, R.C., opened the case for the co-respondent. Tho ease was adjourned till to-mor-row.