"OBVIOUS LIES”

Taranaki Daily News, 29 November 1926, Page 11

"OBVIOUS LIES”

AN UNRELIABLE WOMAN. SURPRISING DIVORCE EVIDENCE. Christchurch, Nov. 26. “What surprises me is that she lias the audacity to go into the witness-box and tell a story punctuates throughout by obvious lies.' These words were used by Mr. Justice Stringer to-day after Ivy Margaret Shaw had given evidence in a divorce case. Her husband, Joseph Shaw, travelling showman, petitioned for a divorce - from her. He named John Boyd Rutherford, labourer, as co-respondent. Mrs. Shaw claimed Chat her husband , condoned her misconduct with Rutherford, and by his conduct conduced to it. She said that she stayed with her husband in Australia for seven months, being on the move all the time, and living in a tent. She alleged that he told her the best thing she could do was | to go back to her people in New Zealand. He came to New Zealand, and ! they lived together again. After she lived with Rutherford her husband paid her under £1 a week. From Australia he had sent her £1 19s and ss. Mr. Thomas, for Shaw, produced documents showing that he had paid her much more. Mr. Thomas: You wrote to your husband, “Dear Joe, —I am sorry I didn't write before. From your loving wife, Ivy. Kisses,” and you were living with Rutherford, you say. Is it true that Rutherford kept you?—"Yes, and he has five children of his own.” "And does not keep them? Rutherford's divorce case is coming on next January. 1 * “I am utisfied that the evidence of condonation is insufficient,” His Honour said. “There is no evidence that the husband knew of the condition of things in regard to Rutherford. She gave a grossly untrue account of the sums she received from him. She is a most unreliable woman in every respect.” . Mr. Hanna (respondent’s counsel): In view of the evidence it is impossible for me to go further with the ease. I am surprised at some of the evidence she gave. I admit that the defence has failed. His Honour: I am quite sure that no barrister with any respect for himself would have presented this case if he had known the statements she was about to make in the witness-box. I rule that there is ground for the petition. A decree nisi will be granted to be made absolute later.