IN DIVORCE.

Taranaki Daily News, 24 June 1920, Page 5

IN DIVORCE.

NEW TRIAL APPLIED FOR. -■ A TARANAKI CASE. At tlie Supreme Court at Wellington on Monday, before Their Honors the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), MrJustice Edwards, and Mr. Justice Chapman, application was made for setting aside the verdict for the petitioner in thj divorce case, Frederick Amnion v. Daisy Geraldine Ammon (respondent), and William Reilly (co-respondent). The petitioner is a farmer residing in the Whangamomona district- Mr. P. Jackson appeared on behalf of the respondent, Mr. A. W. Blair for the co-respondent-, and Mr. A. ,B. Sievwright for the petitioner. NON-ACCESS AND OTHER POINTS. The grounds of the application were: (1) That counsel for the petitioner was guilty of improper and unfair practice (a) in leading evidence to show thai petitioner was not the father of respondent's child, born on June 22nd, 1010, which evidence, on being objected to on behalf of the respondent and co-respon-dent, was allowed to be given on the express undertaking by counsel for the petitioner that he would call evidence to prove non-access between the petitioner and the respondent, which undertaking counsel for the petitioner wholly failed to keep and wholly failed to prove or endeavor to prove non-access between the petitioner and the respondent; (b) in leading evidence (objected to) which was inadmissible, but for counsel's undertaking to prove non-access between the petitioner and the respondent must have led the jury to an erroneous conclusion. (2) That due -weight and proper consideration, could not have been given by the jury to the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent, particularly in respect to the evidence of (a) Frank Leona.'tl Eden, that Alice Myrtle Eden, a material witness for the petitioner, had told him that the petitioner had promised her £SO, and perhaps £75, if he won the case; and (b) of the evidence of the respondent relating to the petitioner visiting her at the People's Palace Hotel on four specific occasions. (3) That Mr. Justice Edwards in his summing up did not refer to the evidence or some material part of the evidence adduced on bjhalf of the respondent, more particularly the evidence given by the witness Frank Leonard Eden and the witness Miss Lyford. (4) That the verdict was obtained by unfair and improper practice of the' successful party to the prejudice of the respondent in that certain entries in the register book of the People's Palace Hotel were referred to as forgeries, which reference was not justified by the evidence, and must have led to an erroneous conclusion by the jury. (5) That the verdict of the jury was against the weight of evidence, and in the interests of justice a new trial should be orderedThe case for the application was argued by Mr. Blair for both respondent and co-respondent. "THE VERIEST BALDERDASH." Mr. Sievwright replied that he had not undertaken to prove non-access, but to call corroborative evidence of nonaccess; and he submitted that he had j done so. He objected to the terms in which the motion referred to himself,ai)i expressed the hope that the reference complained of would be withdrawn. That reference, together with the allegations made, were, he maintained, "the veriest baldrdash," and constituted an insult to the learned judges who dispensed justice at that court. Their Honors reserved judgment