COMPLICATED DIVORCE

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 232, 20 December 1927, Page 17

COMPLICATED DIVORCE

VERDICT FOR HUSBAND CO-RESPONDENT “WIFE’S PAL” A decree nisi was granted William Leonard Gilligan (Mr. R. A. Singer), who yesterday commenced an action for divorce against Victoria Madeline Gilligan (Mr. E. lnder), with Ernest Potter (Mr. Gallaugher) cited as co-respondent, by Mr. Justice Reed this morning. *ThO petitioner stated that he married the respondent in 1917. The

trouble, according to him, was that she refused to have children, and said she would rather take poison than have them. He left her because of that and because he could not get on with her mother, with whom they were living. He met a young girl and fell in love with her, and asked his wife to divorce him so lie could marry this girl. The respondent refused to do this as she did not agree with divorce. The petitioner went on to say that on a visit to his wife’s house he found her and the co-respondent on the bed. In company with a private inquiry agent on June 4 and 5 last he witnessed misconduct. In her evidence the respondent said the real trouble was something which happened at Muriwai Beach. She denied that she ever said she would not have children. Co-respondent boarded with her mother, and he was only a good pal of hers. Petitioner had done everything he could get her to divorce him, but she did not believe in it. She was emphatic in her denial of misconduct. The co-respondent admitted that he was friendly with the respondent, but not very friendly. He denied absolutely that there was any misconduct. In his address Mr. Singer contended that the letters written by the respondent to the petitioner were the crux of the whole thing. “A BIG BLUFF”

Addressing on behalf of the co-respondent, Mr. Gallaugher said the chief cause of the trouble between Gilligan and his wife was not, as he had alleged, that she had refused to have children, but because of Gilligan’s misconduct with a woman at Muriwai. The parties agreed in 1922 to live apart under conditions which at first were friendly, but which subsequently became unfriendly. He asked why the petitioner did not sue. for divorce on the ground of mutual separation, and contended that it was because he knew he could not succeed. The whole story on Gilligan’s behalf, said counsel, was a big bluff. His Honour, in summing up, said that the jury would not have to take into consideration the general question whether it was desirable for the parties to be separated. They had to base their decision on the question whether or not there had been misconduct. That was the only issue before them. “In many respects,” said His Honour, “it is an extraordinary case. It is obvious that one party or the other has perjured themselves deliberately and completely. Perjury is not unusual in cases of this type, and if a woman makes up her mind to deny misconduct, it is extraordinary the amount of false evidence that can be given on both sides.”

The jury retired at 10.25 a.m. and returned at 11.15 a.m. with a verdict that misconduct had been committed. His Honour granted a decree nisi to be made absolute in three months. The co-respondent was ordered to pay costs on the lowest scale.