CROWDED DIVORCE COURT.

Taranaki Central Press, Volume IV, Issue 388, 20 March 1937, Page 5

CROWDED DIVORCE COURT.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S REPORT. No Evidence to Justify Intervention. Press Association—Copyright. Received 10.55 a.m. London, March 19. There was a tense atmosphere in the crowded Divorce Court when proceedings in the Simpson divorce case opened to-day. The case appeared in the cause list as “.Simpson versus Simpson, an application by the King’s Proctor for directions.” Sir Donald Somervell, Attorney-Gen-eral, rose immediately and said: “I appear with Mr. Clifford Mortimer on behalf of the King’s Proctor. This was an undefended divorce case in which the wife was the petitioner. She obtained at the Ipswich Assizes on October 27, 1936, a decree nisi on the grounds of respondent’s adultery with a woman at the Hotel de Paris, Bray, on July 21 and 22 of last year. The trial was fixed to take place at Ipswich by order of the Registrar on the application of petitioner, supported by the affidavit of her solicitor.”

Sir Donald informed the Court that the King’s Proctor’s inquiries into the case had not resulted in the production of any evidence justifying intervention. iSir Donald Somervell said: “Mr. Francis Stephenson intervened on December 19, 1936, alleging in his notice of appearance that he proposed to show cause why the decree nisi should not be made absolute,'owing to material facts not disclosed in the Court, or owing to the decree being obtained by collusion. Mr. Stephenson’s appearance was notified the petitioner’s solicitors on December 10. Mr. Stephenson did not take a further step until December 14, when he sent a letter to petitioner’s solicitors to the effect that he did not intend to file affidavits or proceed further.

“As I understand It, the decree nisi cannot be made absolute so long as the intervenor’s appearance remain on the file,” Str Donald Somervell continued. “Your Lordship, on January 19, directed that the King's Proctor's notice should be drawn to the Intervention, which you requested should be investigated. Basis of Appearance. Sir Donald Somervell then read a letter the King's Proctor had received from the Senior Registrar, which was the basis on which he appeared: “I am directed ly the President to bring to your notice the intervention of Mr. Francis Stephenson in the suit Simpson versus Simpson, and request you to assist him by an investigation. I enclose a copy of the appearance which the intervenor entered. The President desires me to call your attention to the Matrimonial Causes Act,* Rule 52, under which the intervenor is required, within four days of entering an appearance, to file affidavits setting forth the facts on which he relies. The intervenor has not filed any affidavits. You will appreciate that by the Matrimonial Causes Act, Rule 56, the decree absolute cannot be pronounced so long as this appearance remains on record, and after the completion of your investigation it will, of course, be open to you to apply the directions as to the manner in which the appearance should be dealt with, either alone or in conjunction with such investigation as you may be making independently. The President is anxious to hear any application concerning this suit in open Court.”

Reason fur Withdrawal. Sir Donald Somervell proceeded: “Your Lordship may have thought it possible that Mr. Stephenson, when he intervened, had information or available evidence but decided not to proceed for considerations irrelevant to the administration of justice. “The King’s Proctor saw Mr. Stephenson, who stated what the grounds of intervention were. These, I think, were stated in the document: that the suit was collusive, ami that petitioner’s conduct disentitled her to a divorce unless the Court exercised discretion In her favour. Mr. Stephenson, however, told the King’s Proctor that he did not possess evidence to support his allegations, which were based on rumours he had heard from friends and things he had seen in the newspapers. Mr. Stephenson further informed the King’s Proctor that, in view of the events of December, 1936, which were now matters of history, he had decided to withdraw intervention. It was

right, therefore, to say that he had decided not to proceed for considerations irrelevant to the administration of justice. On the contrary, it equally appeared that he had no evidence to support intervention. “I thought it right to appear myself chiefly because the King’s Proctor, who investigates such matters, and intervenes in accordance with the directions, has received a number of letters alleging, or suggesting, that pressure has been brought upon him, or me, to refrain from bringing before the Court any evidence which might be forthcoming or which was, in my opinion, proper to be brought here. There is no truth in either allegation. Thorough Investigation. “For some time before Your Lordship’s reference to Mr. Stephenson’s intervention, the King’s Proctor, In accordance with his ordinary duties, has been thoroughly investigating the case, in which he had three matters in mind:

(1) Whether there was collusion. (2) Whether the petitioner was an accessory or connived at respondent’s adultery. (3) Whether the petitioner's conduct disentitled her to relief.”