BRIBERY ALLEGED

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10614, 12 June 1920, Page 7

BRIBERY ALLEGED

UHUSUAL DIVORCE CASE SOME REMARKABLE EVIDENCE IN CHRISTCHURCH. Further, and rather remarkable evidence was given in the defended divorce case in Christchurch between Robert Somerville, of Lower Riccarton, labourer (petitioner), Bella. Somerville (respondent), and James Potter and Cecil Hamblin (co-respondents). The ease was heard before Air Justice iierdman and a jury. Air H. J. Raphael appeared for the petitioner, Air J .R. Cunningham for the respondent,

and Air H. H. Hanna for the co-re-spondent Potter. . Continuing her evidence. Ah's homervillo denied emphatically that sha had over misconducted herself with either of the co-respondents. Regarding the alleged .admission by Hamblin, in the presence of herself and her husband. she stated that her husband and Hamblin were both rather in liquor when tho incident took place. _ Sho denied the charge as soon -as it was made. AVhafc they stated about it was untrue. Tlie respondent also declared that the evidence' of certain other witnesses for the petitioner was false. His Honour; How do wo find so manv people concocting stories? 1110 witness repented that what the witnesses had said was untrue. His Honour. How do you account for four people coming into court and telling untruths?—lt must bo a "made-up yarn.” I don’t know anything about it. Cross-examined by Air Raphael, too respondent, denied that she ever discussed divorce proceedings with Airs Robertson, and said that the latter's statements on the subject were untrue. His Honour: What reason have you for saying that she ha.s come here with •an invented story ?—1 have an idea. How about the other witness?—l believe sho was paid for it. Tn answer to further onestiona by His Honour, Airs ..Somerville said that she believed Hamblin and his wife had been paid to give their evidence. His Honour; You are making a serious charge against these people. Tell mo what you think Hamblin was paid?—Aloney, I suppose. Sho vsnbn’ncd that while the Hamblins were living in the house her husband used v> ’hand his money over to Airs Hamblin, and she (witness) had to get monev from Airs Hamblin when sho wanted any. His Honour: Yon say that n sum of money was paid to Hamblin for making a written confession? —Yes, I do. Air Raphael ;Did you say that if vour husband won tho divorce action von would shoot him and “drown the bids”? —Xo. I did not ; but he reckoned that if he lost this case he would shoot me. Did you swear on the Bible that vouliad committed misconduct with Hamblin and Potter?—No! I refused! Your husband produced a Bible?—. Yes. This closed the case for the respondent. POTTER GIVES EVIDENCE.

Evidence was given, by the co-respon-dent, .James Potter. He stated that ho was a labourer by occupation, hut had at one time tSught a little boxing. He became acquainted ■ with Mr and Airs Somerville in January, 1919, and used often to go to evening parties at their house. He was never in the house alone with Mrs Somerville, and never took her out. Ho was more friendly with the husband than with the wife. I bis was while he was Jiving in the same street. After he moved away ho visited their house only once, When he met the Somervilles first he • was a widower, having lost itis wife in the influenza epidemic. He married again on March 9th, 1910. After his marriage he had a conversation with Airs Somerville in his wife’s presence, and in the course of it she said she hoped ho was not hein" paid to give evidence, ns Hamblin" and his wife had. When the court proceedings had been started, he nu'X Somerville in the street, and said to him, “Look here,' Somerville, j big and all as you are, I’ll swing for ! von.” , Mr Hanna: What made you say it. J —Well, it was: enough to make anyone eav that. How would you like to bo placed in my position “ The witness went on to say that, following this, Somerville called on him and suggested that he should not defend the case- He said that Airs Somerville and Hamblin would not defend it, and if he (witness') did the same he would save himself a good deal of expense and trouble. He replied that ho was determined to defend himself. To Air It upload: Airs Somerville handed him her husband’s revolver over the fence one day, saying slid was afraid that Somerville might shoot her with it. That was how it came into hia possession. He had never said that ho would not defend the ease, but it was ai fact that Somerville practically offered him money not to defend it. AN ATTENTIVE SWAIN:.

Agnes Potter, wife of the preceding witness, corroborated his account of tho interview between isomer vibe and her husband. Somerville, she said, offered to make it worth her husband’s while not to deleud tins action. fit reply to Mr Raphcal, tho witness said that -Mrs Hamblin could not have seen Potter visit Mrs Somerville's house seven or eight tims, as she had stated. He. could not have visited, tho house without her knowledge, because she was with him continuously-in the daytime from January Hath to February Hbrd. id in Honour: I don’t understand. Was ho working!—No; ho wasn’t work--1 on mean that as soon as he got up in the morning lie went to see you, and stayed with you till he went to bed at night 'i Vcs! die did. .Mr Hanna: They were married on March Uth, Vour Honour. His Honour; Well, ho must have been very attentive. Mr Hanna; Theyniscd to go out to Sumner and Now Brighton and other places. THE JUDGE’S COMMENT. His Honour, in his summing up, said that tho case was remarkable, in that one of the principal witnesses lor tho petitioner was tho wile ot one of the co-respondents. She was still living on amicable and intimate terms with her husband, according to her own statement ; yet she came into court to testify to his guilt. He referred to the respondent's allegation that five witnesses for tho petitioner wore all telling untruths, and that four of them had been paid to give, their evidence — ur other words, that their testimony to one set of facts was a conspiracy and a wicked inveiitioe. He pointed out that there was no evidence of any payment. The jury would have to con-

sider whether four people—leaving; tho petitioner out of the counter—would ho likely to como into court to give clmbcratclv false testimony. THE VERDICT. . Tlio jury found that the respondent had been guilty of misconduct witli Hamblin, but nob with Potter. His Honour granted a decree nisi, a motion for its being made absolute to be moved in three months. He awarded costs on the higher scale to tbo jKititioncr against Hamblin, and, ordered the latter to pay- ;C2d, which tlio petitioner had had to provide to meet tho respondent's costs. Potter was granted costs on the higher scale against the petitioner. It was agreed that tho children, who are in a homo, should remain there, ponding the motion for a dccjreo absolute.