NO COLLUSION

Taranaki Central Press, Volume IV, Issue 389, 22 March 1937, Page 6

NO COLLUSION

SIMPSON DIVORCE.

Why Intervention was Withdrawn. Press Association —Copyright, London. March 21. In the Divorce Court to-day, before the President of the Probate, Divorcfe and Admiralty Division, Sir Bjyd Merriman, the Attorney-Generjal, SiT Donald Somervell, concluded his speech in connction with the Simpson divorce case.

“The King's Proctor’s inquiries into ail aspects of the case, including the intervener's points, have not retailed in any evidence justifying me. id directing intervention,” he said. "I therefore apply for directions. In these circumstances, as far as the intervention is concerned, which it' a 1 matter particularly before Your Lordships, it is quite |air to say that,v.'e have no grounds on which we could resist an application for a removtf! of that intervention.” Sir Boyd Merriman asked if Mr Francis Stephenson was present, upon which a middle-aged man rose. The President asked of he would care to address the court. Mr Stephennon: “I would like to say thjat the facts put by the Attor-ney-General are substantially correct. That applies io any steps taken by me, or" anything that may have been' said, but I adhere to the decision to withdraw and consent, to any order the court may make.” Full Statement. Sir Boyd asked whether Mr Norman Birkett, representing Mrs Simpson, had anything to say. Mr Birkett: "living heard the details of the Attorney-General’s statement for the first time, I welcome the full' and comprehensive =l-1 tern: n't the court has received, which must do good, for it is impossible for the petitioner to deal with, the rumours’ and gossip and allegations of pressure."

Sir Boyd Merriman, giving his decision, said: “The Attorney General has stated that tberj Is no evidence available for collusion or non-disclbs-ure of material facts at the original hearing. That phrase covers all pos sible bars to obtaining the divorce.” Sir Boyd then asked'if Mr Stephenson was prepared to have the matter dealt with immedTately. Mr Stephenson replied in the affirmative, Whereupon Mr Birkett asked thf pearance be struck out. Sir Boyd consented, and the proce -oncluded.

EDWARD’S BROADCAST

Influence,On Intervenor. Press Association —Copyright. London, March 20. Mr Frtancis Stephenson, intervener in the Siinpson divorce case, when interviewed, revealed that King Edward’s broadcast after the abdication, "Was one of the factors deciding him to withdraw the intervention. “I heatd the broadcast on that memoriable Friday evening,” said Mr Stephenson. “He had been my King. You remember what he said: “I found, it impossible to carry on the aeavy burden of responsibility Without the and support of the woman I love.’ “I thought: ‘That man’s human.’ I still have respect, sympathy and loyalty for hjim. I will not do anything to hurt or inconvenience him.” Mr Stephenson told the T>riilv Mail: “I intervened entirely on my own accord as a. private individual. lam absolutely satisfied with 'v.hat was said and done in the court.” Mr Stephenson was managing clerk of a solicitor’s. l rm at London for a month.

Mrs Simpson, informed by telephone of the decision, did not comment, but it is understood thlat she is greatly refieved and is reported to have immediately telephoned the Duke of Windsor. Mr Herman Rogers, on behalf o? , friend, says that Mrs Simpson knew' nothing of the intervener or hts motives. Wedding Date Denial. Mr Herman Rogers, on behalf of Mrs Simpson, denied that the date and venue of the wedding had be fixed. He also dented that the Duk< of Windsor would visit France before April 27, when the decree absolute will be obtainable. A message from says that the Duke of Windsor was up early and after- a hurried breakfast had several telephone calls to London, ft is reported from the Castle that he appeared nervous as he wlandiered about the building and the grounds l . He had planned to go to Vienna in the morning., but postponed the trip .ntil the afternoo, * •