DIVORCE JUDGE AND BLACKMAIL

Hokitika Guardian, 1 February 1930, Page 7

DIVORCE JUDGE AND BLACKMAIL

WIFE’S CONCOCTED CONFESSION. THE EE NIGHTS IN A CARAVAN. LONDON, January 12. Payments described by Mr Justice Hill as “ in the nature of blackmail” were mentioned by him in tbe Divorce Court yesterday when dismissing the petition of Mr Percy Frederick Rich, an electrician, of Trafalgar-street, Brighton. lie said those matters might be the ground of a criminal charge. The bearing of the case had lasted live days.

Mr Rich sought the dissolution of his marriage with his wife, Evelyn Gertrude Rich, who forniely conducted nursing hemes at Eastbourne and Bournemouth, on the ground of her alleged adultery with the Rev. Harold Bain, rector of All Saints’ Church, Lewes, Sussex, in a caravan at Seatow u Farm, near Bridport, Dorset, on three nights in September of last year. The allegation of adultry was denied but Mrs Rich and Mr Pain admitted that they stayed in the caravan in separate bunks ' when they had driven out to it and the motor-car broke down Mr Clifford Mortimer and Mr Richard Ellis were counsel for Mr Rich;Mr Hudson represented Mrs Rich; and Mr Walter Frampton was counsel for Mr Pain I

Two aditional witnesses were called yesterday for Mr Rich his sisters, Miss Ruth Ethel Rich and Miss Daisy Emily Rich, both of Trafalgar-street Brighton, where they conducted a jewellers’ shop. Mr Rich was recalled by bis solictor, Mr Charles Webb of Pavi-lion-parade Brighton, went into tliei witness-box.

“VERY SERIOUS CASE.” Mr Justice Hill, giving judgment said the ease was a very serious one in one way, because there was a subordinate issue of whether the husband attempted or succeeded in blackmailing Mr Pain. On tiie other matter it.was a simple ease of which side he believed. Mrs Rich knew of the caravan, and when Mr Pain was staying at her Bournemouth nursing home they motored in the country and visited the caravan returning to Bournemouth at night. On the second visit, on September 26th ttie car broke Mown. Mr Pain had taken tickets for a Bournemouth i theatre that night, but they had to! send the night away and Mrs Rich te-j lephoned to her daughter, who with one of the nurses at the nursing home used the tickets. The repairs to the car were not completed until late on the evening of September 28, and the car was not delivered at the caravan until ten o’clock that

night. That they spent three nights away from home was due to the breakdown of the car coupled on the third day with a gale. “On the other hand,” said Mr Justice Hill, “there was no necessity for them both to spend the night in the caravan. It was foolish of Mr Pain. In fact, here was accommodation in the village inn, and it was also said there was a car which could have been hired.”

Mr Pain’s explanation was that if he and Mrs Rich had stayed at the inn. where they would have to register, it would be more likely to raise comment. He made inquiries about another car, but -did not find one.

In his (the judge’s) view, there was no necessity for Mr Pain to stay at the caravan. Bridport was only three miles away, and lie could have walked there and put up at an hotel. There had been a time when Mr Pain and Mrs Rich had stood in the relation of patient to nurse, but at this time Mr Pain was not an invalid.

SLEPT IN LOWER. BUNK. It was not immaterial that Mrs Rich gave her own name to the woman who let her have the key, and Mr Pain his own name to the woman at the dairy. So far as evidence showed Mrs Rich, retired to bed first in the lower bunk and Mr Pain, who had been waiting outside, then came in and went to bed in the upper hunk. In the morning Mr Pain left the caravan before Mrs Rich got lip. They had motored down quite unprepared to spend a night away, and with no luggage. Both declared that there was no more impropriety than was involved in sleeping in the same caravan. It was against Mrs Rich that she was willing at one stage before the petition was filed to arrange a divorce with her husband on the basis of adultery with a man unknown, and that she wrote a letter dated Noveml>er 4 which, in its essential was untrue.

WIFE’S LETTER, Mr Justice Hill read a passage from the letter in which Mrs Rich said: “I met a man in August last, and I am going to have a child by him. * not tell you his name or anything about him.” “I find as a fact,” said Mr Justice Hill,- “that she was not pregnant and knew she was not pregnant and knew she was incapable of'becoming pregnant.

“The letter is a false letter, which has come into existence in order that it might be used in some divorce proceedings. I therefore must bear that in mind in considering Mrs Rich evidence. “On the other hand Mr Rich has put in that letter, and he knew that it had come into existence to be used, if it could be used, in a false case being put before the ocurt, his reservation being, ‘I must see what' my solicitor says.’ So fas as he was concerned, he also was willing that a false case should lie presented to the court. “It seems that Mr Rich and Mrs* Rich are both tarred with the same brush so far as the letter is concerned but this does not affect Mr Pain.

“I accept his evidence that he knew nothing of the letter or of any arrangement between husband and wilfe with a view to a divorce on fictitious grounds until after that date. Not judging him as a clergyman but as. a man, 1 am satisfied he was telling me throughout the tnlth.” It was said that he (the judge) ought not to.accept Mr Pain’s evidence because he was exceedingly anxious that the fact that he had spent three nights in the caravan at the same time as Mrs Rich should not be known, and he was ready to pay a considerable sum to secure that it was not known. That was no reason why the court should disbelieve him.

Having regard to the fact that he was a clergyman, he would be most anxious that no inquiries should be made by his ecclestical superiors, and he would know that there would be plenty of people ready to wag the head over behaviour of that sort. DENIALS UNTRUE. Innocent or guilty, he would be anxious that the fact should not be known. Mr Justice Hill found that adultery did not take place, and he was unable to accept Mr Rich’s evidence, except where it was corrobrated. He was unable to do so, because he was satisfied that Mr Pain and Mrs Rich told the truth about payments of money to Mr Rich and that his denials were untrue. ?,

As to the first payment of £SO on November 20, 1928 he came to the conclusion that the money was- found by Mr Pain and posted by Mrs Rich to her husband, and that it was paid in consequence of threats by Mr Rich . and was therefore payment in the nature of blackmail. He did not think it right to deal with the second payment which was said to have been made in January or with other threats said to have been made These matters might be the ground of a criminal charge.

He could not believe Mr Rich and could not accept his evidence that his wife confessed to him that there was adultery. As to what was said to be a written confession by the wife, Mr Justice Hill said he believed the confession to be the invention of Mr Rich and that the written confession was a concocted matter as Mrs Rich and Mr Rich well knew. He accepted the wife’s evidence that ,in substance, it was drafted by the husband.

There was no case against Mr Pain and he dismissed the petition, v with costs, and dismissed Mr Pain from the suit.