Lists (None yet)

Login to create lists

Tagged (None yet)

Add Tags

Comments (None yet)

Add New Comment

No corrections yet

THE ORROROO DIVORCE

' CASK

ALLEGATIONS PROVED. I

On Thursday morning the hearing of the case in which Hugh Alexander Walker peti- tioned for divorce from his wife. Rosina Walker, on the grounds of adultery with Richard Janies Hutchens, district clerk oi Orroroo, was resumed, before his .Honor the Chief Justice. Mr. G. Degenhardt ap- peared for the petitioner, Mr. 11. Homburg for the respondent, and Mr. J. C. Hamp wíj- the co-respondent.

Isabel Kirkwood, mother of the witness Apnes Muy Kirkwood, gave corroborative evidence to that advanced by her daughter.

Annie Brearton, who lived with the peti- tioner and Mrs. Walker ns servant from January to October 23, 1901, said she slept at home. Witness frequently accompanied respondent when she was going to visit her mother. On these occasions when they met tlie co-respondent the respondent would tell witness to go back home and she would go on with him.

This closed the case for the petitioner, and I he counsel for respondent and co-re- spondent intimated that they did not pro- pose to call evidence or address the court.

The Chief Justice said that the case was one in which, the learned counsel for the respondent and co-respondent had been placed in a position of very great difficulty, and he was not committing a breach of con- fidence in saying that they had consulted him in respect to it that morning. They had been of the opinion that thej- had no evidence to satisfactorily meet tlie caso for the petition. He had told them that they were right in the view they had taken that it would not be proper for them to aban- don the case for the respondent and co- respondent until the case for the petitioner was closed, because theirs was not the re- sponsibility of deciding, and up to the last moment something might occur to com- pletely change the complexion of tho case. Although the proceedings had occupied several da>s, he had observed from the first that public time had not been wasted, as it sometimes was, by irrelevant cross-exami- nation. Both Mr. Homburg and Mr. Hamp had cross-examined with great propriety and with considerable skill. The case for the respondent and the co-respondent had been admirably conducted, and he sym- pathised with both counsel on the difficult position in which they found themselves. It was impossible to listen to the case with- out coming to the conclusion either that the charges were made out or that, without assignable motive, there was a conspiracy between a large number of peoplo to bring about the ruin of the respondent and loss of character to the co-respondent. He thought that a wise discretion had been ex- ercised in not attempting to establish the existence of any such conspiracy, and in refraining from having the lamentable story dragged further out before the public. For all parties concerned the sooner the case 1 was forgotten the better. He hod seen no

reason to doubt the truthfulness of the evi- dence in listening to the story detailed by the witnesses, although his judgment on it had of course been suspended. He found the allegations of adultery charged in the petition proved. No evidence had been offered in support of the counter-charges of cruelty, and lie thought that a wise dis- cretion had been exercised in not taking np time in attempting to prove what it ivas i impossible satisfactorily to establish. He

found those charges disproved, and would report accordingly.

Zoom

plus
thumb
minus
left
thumb
right
up
thumb
down