DICTAPHONE EVIDENCE

Wairarapa Times-Age, 1 June 1938, Page 2

DICTAPHONE EVIDENCE

IN AUCKLAND DIVORCE CASE. JUDGE’S SHARP REBUKE. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) AUCKLAND, May 31. A divorce action in which petitioner claimed £lOOO damages against co-respondent came before Mr Justice Callan and a jury in the Supreme Court. The action was brought by Henry George Donald, Auckland, fellmonger, against Agnes Mary Fanny Donald and David Brideson, Auckland, butcher, who was named as corespondent. The petition was based on the ground of adultery. In addition to a divorce decree and £lOOO damages, petitioner sought custody of his 14-year-old son. Both respondent and co-respondent denied allegations of adultery.

Counsel said petitioner would rely chiefly on what had actually been seen, but there would also be evidence of what was heard on a dictaphone. A private inquiry agent, in his evidence, said he took a dictaphone, or listening-in instrument with him and would be prepared to give a demonstration to the court with it if required. Some of his replies under crossexamination drew a rebuke from his Honour, who said: "Don’t disgrace the place you are in more than the inquiry necessarily does.”

Witness said that with his microphone he could hear a fly walking across a pane of glass. His Honour; And to the untrained observer that might be taken for Mr Brideson walking across the floor? The case was adjourned.