FOXTON DIVORCE CASE

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 2656, 8 November 1923, Page 2

FOXTON DIVORCE CASE

CURRIE V. CURRIE AND TAYLOR PETITIONER AWARDED £2OO DAMAGES. _ _ ... At the Palmerston X. session of the Supreme Court yesterday, before Mr Justice MacGregor, Willifun H. Currie (Mr Hollings) sought a dissolution of his marriage to Wiiniil'red E. Currie on the grounds of adultery and for £2OO damages from Albert. Taylor, the co-respon-dent.

The following jury were empanelled : R. Hart (foreman), H. J. Simmonds, W. C. Birch, H. True, E. Luce, 11. E. Hoffmann, L. J. Attwood, G. W. Paterson, P. .T. Neilson, J. C. Dale, E. \V. G. Sollit, and J. R. Cair,

It was explained at the outset that the matter of damages alone concerned the jury, the divorce being left to the discretion of His Honour.

In placing the case before the Court, counsel for the petitioner -aid that the parties were married i>:i March 6, 1915, and resided at Foxton. It was alleged that on various dates between October, 1921 and July 1923, the respondent had committed adultery with Albert Taylor, and in respect to this petitioner claimed £2OO damages from Taylor. William Henry Currie, the petitioner, gave details of what he described as a “wild flirtation between his wife and Taylor.” In consequence of his suspicions, he watched the pair, and on more than one occasion had his suspicions confirmed. Witness remonstrated with respondent, but could-not break the intimacy and when witness asked Taylor certain questions respecting a fond farewell he had taken of respondent on the Levin‘railway station, the latter replied in very strong germs, declaring that nothing would separate them. Petitioneivproduced affectionate letters which had passed between the two parties and also a letter he received from his wife disclaiming him as„ hey husband.' Corroborative evidence was given by several witnesses of incidents al-ngi-d in have occurred in the eour-,-e of the intimacy. After a retirement of thirty minutes, the jury returned with a verliiet i Ini! adultery Lad been proved against respondent and that petitionee was entitled lo £2OO damages from the co-respondent Taylor. His Honour granted a decree nisi to he moved absolute after fke expiration of three jnonths, petitioner to have the custody of the two children. Judgment \vjis theq formally given against Taylor for £201) damages and posts on the lower scale, the damages to be applied for the bener lit of the children,