DAMAGES AWARDED

Waikato Times, Volume 122, Issue 20497, 13 May 1938, Page 3

DAMAGES AWARDED

stance the jury was entitled to regard the case as one where the co-respond-ent had seduced petitioner’s wife and had taken her from petitioner and from the home in which they had been quite happy together. In such a case a jury might well consider a petitioner entitled to substantial damages.

ARAPUNI DIVORCE CASE NO EVIDENCE FOR DEFENCE GROUND OF MISCONDUCT A jury in the Supreme Court, Hamilton, yesterday afternoon heard Colin Sinclair Walker, carpenter, of Arapuni Mr J. F. Strang;, petition for divorce from Julia Walker (Mr W. J. King. , on the ground of adultery, James Johnson McGill, butcher, of Arapuni (Mr S. S. Preston), being named as co-respondent. After a short retirement, the jury returned a verdict that respondent had committed adultery with the co-res-pondent and that the co-respondent had committed adultery with respondent (the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, having directed that findings on these two issues would have to be returned) and accordingly petitioner was granted a decree nisi. Petitioner also claimed £2OO damages and the full amount was granted by the jury against the co-respondent, with costs, also against co-respondent, amounting to £25, witnesses’ expenses and disbursements. No Evidence Fop Defence No evidence was called for the defence, counsel for respondent and co- . respondent did not address and an adI mission by both respondent and corespondent of adultery was put into court by counsel for petitioner. Petitioner stated in evidence that he had married respondent in 1918 and they lived happily together, though Ihere were no children of the marriage, until McGill had appeared on the scene some time ago. In August or last year respondent had admitted that she had been in love with McGill for some considerable time. This had been confirmed by McGill, a married man with a wife and family, and since that date petitioner had not lived with or spoken to his wife. Respondent had gone and lived with McGill at Puketurua and there divorce papers had been served. Immediately after their service, respondent returned to Arapuni and since then she had been living there with McGill in a house within a stone's-throw of McGill’s own proper residence. Corroborative evidence was provided by Doris Adelaide McGill, wife of co-respondent and Winifred Gertrude Steele, married woman, of Arapuni. Directing the jury that they would have to llnd whether respondent and co-respondent had each committed adultery, 11 is Honour said it might have been possible for evidence to be given against respondent which would be inadmissable against co-respondent. There was, however, no such difficulty in the present case. Regarding the damages claim, His Honour said that in the present in-