Damages Against Co-Respondent

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 44, 14 May 1927, Page 16

Damages Against Co-Respondent

A DEVONPORT DIVORCE EIGHT MONTHS MARRIED When Leading Stoker Hector Horatio Barry took his wife “for better or for worse” some eight months ago. he little thought that within a year he would be petitioning for a dissolution of the union. At the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon he named Percy King, a taxi-driver residing at Devonport, as co-respondent, and claimed damages to the extent of £SOO. Adultery was stated as the ground of the action, which was not defended. His Honour Mr. Justice Stringer presided. For the petitioner Mr. P. R. Hunt stated that the parties were married at Auckland on August 27, 1926, and lived together at Devonport except when petitioner was at sea on the warship to which he was attached. It was alleged that respondent committed adultery with King on various dates between March 11 and 31. Petitioner had gone to considerable expense in providing a home for his wife during their brief span of married life, said counsel, and the sum of £ 500 would therefore be claimed. EVERYTHING GONE Petitioner stated that in addition to paying £l5O deposit on a home he had paid his wife’s passage from England and had also given her an engagement ring valued at £l4. On account of rumours that he had heard he engaged a private detective to watch his house during his absence on a three weeks’ voyage. When he returned he found that his wife had gone and that the furniture had been taken from the house. As a result of the inquiries made by the inquiry agent he instituted proceedings. A private inquiry agent gave evidence as to a party held at Barry’s house on March 11. He said that in addition to King and Mrs. Barry there were also present two young men and two girls. After a while he saw King and Mrs. Barry go into the front room and turn out the lights. On other occasions he had seen King and Mrs. Barry together in compromising situations. A WIFE’S VALUE Adultery having been clearly proved, said his Honour, all that remained for the jury was to consider the amount of the damages to be awarded. To assess the damages it was necessary to determine the value of the wife to the husband. On that basis it could be assumed that a loose woman of disloyal instincts was of little value to a husband; in fact, the husband was better off without her.

He considered that the present case was one for damages of a small amount.

A decree nisi was granted with damages to the extent of £350. Costs on the lowest scale were allowed.