DEFENCE FAILS

Hokitika Guardian, 13 June 1932, Page 3

DEFENCE FAILS

EVIDENCE IN DIVORCE CASE. POLITICIAN AWARDED DAMAGES HAMILTON, June 10. Some .extraordinary evidence was given in an action for divorce on tin grounds of adultery heard in the Supreme Court, Hamilton. The action was brought by Edward Young, hotel porter ,c Hamilton, against his with., Lilian Olive Young. Sydney Williams, railway employee, from whom £3OO damages was claimed, was cited as c.,lespondent. ■ '

Retit i oner stated that he was married in February, 1918, and there wen two children of the marriage. Lad, November his wife’s feelings toward;! him changed, and on January 6 be iqent her tol:) Auckland and arranged that she should< stay with bin mother. Respondent returned two days later, than lie expected, ajul he subsequently l found that she had set up a 1 liasison with Williams. Evidence was led to show "that Williams had spent the week-end, Ja'nuar; 9 and 10, at an Auckland - hotel, and that Airs Young, although telling 'petitioner’s mother that she was staying with another woman, did not "actually do so. A hotel porter gave Evidence that .respondent- and co-respondent had stayed a night at the hotel vfibre lie was employed. Tlie defence pleaded cdiidoriation. Witness stated that they bad watched Young’s house, and that lie had cohabited with respondent after' divorce proceedings had been issued.

Counsel for petitioner made poiiited reference to what lie described as an attempt to spoil petitioner’s chances.of getting a divorce. His Honour referred to the' case as extremely unpleasant and sordid. There was abflndant evidence of misconduct, and lie described the defence as extraordinary. He did not thin’ the jury wbuld have any difficulty in rejecting the plea of condonation. The jury gfive a unanimous verdict that adultery had lieen committed between the respondent and tlie co-re-spondent, and that Young had not condoned his wife’s misconduct. .By a majority of ten to two the jury ed petitioner £3OO damages ' against respondent. A decree nisi judgment for the amount awarded was entered, and' oetitioner was given custody of the children. The co-resppndent was ordered’to pay the petitioner’s costs on the highest scale..