STORM IN COURT

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10606, 3 June 1920, Page 4

STORM IN COURT

JUDGE AND COUNSEL SOLICITOR THREATENED WITH CONTEMPT OF COURT. DIVORCE PETITION FAILS. An unexpected development occurrfcd in the course of a divorce case at the Supreme Court yesterday, when the presiding judge, after hearing the first witness brought by counsel for the petitioner, declined to hear further evidence, instructed the jury to return a verdict that sufficent grounds for divorce had not been established, and dismissed the petition. '

The petitioner in the case was John Walter Yorston, clerk, of Wellington, and the respondent Ida May Yorston. Petitioner sought a. dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion. His Honour Mr Justice Edwards was on the bench. Mr P. \V. Jackson appeared for the petitioner, and Mr H. F. O’Leary for the respondent. A jury of twelve was empannelled, of whom Mr A. Christeson was foreman. THE PETITIONER’S CASE. In outlining the ease to the jury, Mr Jackson said that the parties were married on December 14th, 1913, at Wellington. After the marriage, they lived at Ngahauranga, and there was one child. In 1916 the respondent deserted her husband, and they had lived apart ever since. Counsel described the marriage as a domestic tragedy. The parties had been wholly unsuited to one another since the commencement. The result was that every day of their married life in the time they lived together wan fraught with continual unhappiness. The petitioner attributed the trouble to tho faot that the wife really did not care for her husband; from the commencement she was cold and callous, and did not show the slightest affection for him. She never troubled to make his home life comfortable, was untjdy and slovenly in the house, and unmindful of his comfort as far as meals were concerned. “MARRIAGE A MISTAKE.” Entering the box, petitioner said that he was a relief clerk in the railway service. In 1915 he and his wife removed from Ngahauranga to Mako--tuku, where they remained of or about nine months. He was then transferred ,to Wellington, but his wife refused to accompany him and went to live with her uncle in Featherston, stating that her marriage had been a mistake from the day of the wedding, and that she had definitely finished with him. Witness was prepared to bring her to Wellington and provide a homo for her. hut she was firm in her intention not to go to Wellington. Ha accompanied her to Featherston, and they also took the child with them. She, had not lived with him since the child remained with her and he made arrangements to maintain it. He first of all forwarded his wife 10s a week, and then twelve months later consequent upon the increased cost of living, and the child’s delicate state of health, ho increased it to £T, which ho had kept up ever since. His wife had never made any application to him for maintenance for herself. Later she stated that she would go to any lengths to secure a divoice from him. Her manner towards him at that time was of utter contempt. A DIVORCE DISCUSSED.

e On an occasion some time later, his wife'mentioned that she had been keeping company with another man, but she would not tell him his name, saying that he was about to call upon witness; the man would be co-respondent, and witness might wish to chum damages from him. He told her that he intended taking divorce proceedings, but she asked him to wait, saying that the other man was coming to take her away. Subsequently* she _ said that she was going to Australia in the lollowing April. In id arch he met her in (Juba street, when she was accompanied by a lady friend. He spoke to her, asking if her affections had changed; calling her friend she said to her in “a sneering, laughing, dirty” tone, “Ho asked me to live with him again.” They both seemed to treat the matter as a sort of joke, and he told her he wanted her written word for what she had said. .As a result he received from her a letter in which she said she did not want anything further to do with him as she was through with him. NO DESERTION.

At this stage Mr Jackson intimated that ho did not wish to ask any further questions of the witness. His Honour declared that he could see no evidence of desertion in the petitioner’s statements. Mr Jackson said that the action of the respondent in leaving her husband constituted desertion. His Honour said he could not agree’ with him on that point. Mr Jackson: I submit that she loft him, unless she can justify her. action. Ho has sworn that she refused to go to Wellington with him. I submit that I am entitled to bring further evidence. His Honour: You hare given no evidence of desertion. If you do not agree to my ruling; Mr Jackson, you can refer the caso to Hie Appeal Court. Mr Jackson: We must have an• end to this: the end has come. His Honour agreed to counsel calling the witness. bade into the box to give cert' - ’-’ evidence. ,

~'riAT NONSENSE!” Counsel (to witness): You : are on your former oath. His Honour: What nonsense you talk, Mr Jackson. Mr Jackson: Your Elonour? I don’t like to bo told it is nonsense I ■ talk. , i .I His Honour:. It is nonsense to toll the witness ho is on his former oath. Mr Jackson; I respectfully submit, Your Honour, it is not nonsense. His Honour; Go on with the case, Mr Jackson. I will not allow you to wrangle with mo on every word 1 say. Counsel proceeded to question the witness and naked if ho had lived happily path his wife. Witness said that every day of his married life had been filled with constant misery. His Honour: I will not allow evidence to he given of previous nets of differences between the parties not connected with the separation petition. Such evidence, he said, was inadmissible.'

Mr Jackson: No act at all, Your. Honour? His Honour: I have ruled so. and I do not intend to hear one word from you.

Mr Jackson; Then. Your Honour, 1

must accept your ruling and I have no further questions to ask this witness. His Honour: Then that is youi case?

Counsel: No, I have other evidence as to desertion, Your Honour. Tho witness was ordered to stand down. Mr Jackson: I only have a witness to prove that this man had been left alone for the greater part of the three years his wife has not' lived with him, hut in -view of what Your Honour has said—that you would direct the jury to find that desertion had not been proved—of course it is useless. I submit I have established a, prima facie ease. His Honour further objected to a Tegument with Mr Jackson.

Mr Jackson: Then I’must how to Y'our Honour’s ruling on the question of the rejection of the evidence I wish to tender, but I cannot agree to it. His Honour: I don’t ask you to agree to anything; it is mv ruling. Turning tp the jury, His Honour said that there was no evidence of desertion to support tho appeal, -so there was only one course open to* them. Tho foreman said that some members of the jury wished to consider certain points of the case. '■‘A CASE OP WRANGLES.” His Honour declined to allow consideration of the points. Foreman: lam sorry, Your Honour. It seems to be a case where wrangles occur. His Honour: You have no right to depart from the direction I have given you. Foreman: Have we the right to consider the case of bringing in a rider ? His Honour; You have not. Foreman; Several members of tb» jury think so. His Honour: I won’t allow it for the sake of decency. You must understand this, that tho only person who can determine the judicial act of a judge is another judge. For that purpose the 1 Court of Appeal is instituted. I cannot accept any comment on my action from the jury. “SIT DOWN, SIR!” Mr Jackson: Y’our Honour ——. His Honour: Sit down, Mr Jackson, Mr Jackson; But, Your Honour . His Honour: Sit down, sir. Mr Jackson: Y’our Honour—- — His Honour: Sit down, sir. Now, Mr Jackson, I shall commit you for contempt of court if you interrupt again_ Foreman of, the jury: We would like to retire to consider the case. Do you. debar us from that privilege, sir? His Honour: I cannot stop you from, retiring, but you must understand 1 will allow no rider or anything which is comment upon the way in which I have discharged my duty to-day. Foreman: Thank you, Y’our Honour. I have heard you.

The jury was absent from the courtroom for about a Quarter of an hour, and returned with a finding in accordance with His Honour’s direction. The foreman added that the jury wished to express its regret - that it was debarred from malting any comment on the case.

,Mr O’Learv asked His Honour ‘for £3O costs against the petitioner, and after legal argument, the court granted £25. as fixed in the lower scale. Mr Jackson then formally asked for leate to apply for a new trial. It. was usual to allow four days to elapse before making application, he said, but he wished His Honour to extend that time to fourteen days.

■Mr O’Leary .consented to this, and the extension was allowed.