DIVORCE EVIDENCE VALUES

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 837, 4 December 1929, Page 6

DIVORCE EVIDENCE VALUES

ADMISSIONS BY RESPONDENT Front Our Own lieportcr. WELLINGTON, Today. The value of an admission by respondent, unsupported by other evidence, in an undefended divorce suit based' on a charpre of adultery, .was discussed by the Chief Justice, the Hon. M. Myers, yesterday in an oral judgment in the case of Hilda Judith Woolcott against Charles Roadman Woolcott. The only evidence given in the case was that of the petitioner, who said that her husband had admitted to her that ho had committed adultery. A letter written by petitioner was produced in support of her statement. His HonoLir said the evidence in the case consisted mainly of an admission or confession made in writing by the respondent. It had been held in the case of Wilkie v. Wilkie (1929 N.Z.L.8.) that an admission by the respondent, whether written or oral, was not in itself sufficient, proof of adultery. No authorities were cited by the Judge who heard the case in support of the view he had expressed. The Chief Justice said he had looked into the authorities and it seemed to him that the view so expressed was not in accordance with tliose authorities. They showed that if the Court were satisfied that tjie confession Wfts bona fide, that there was no doubt as to its genuineness and sincerity, a decree should be granted, even although there was no additional evidence. He had had the opportunity of discussing the matter with the Judge who heard the case of Wilkie v. Wilkie, and he believed the latter concurred in the view he was now expressing.