JOHN OVER Vs. MURIEL AIOVER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When this matter came before us on June 20 last, we directed the District Court to record further evidence as to the alleged adultery, and to examine the petitioner. The District Court has recorded further evidence. The petitioner has been examined on oath now, and his son also has given evidence. The respondent, the wife of the petitioner, has not appeared at any stage of the proceedings. The letters written by the wife to the petitioner are on the record. On the strength of the letters and the evidence given by the petitioner and his son, the learned District Judge has expressed his opinion that the adultery of the respondent with another person not known is proved. He held the letters written by the respondent to be conclusive.

(2.) The matter is now before us, and the learned pleader for the petitioner supports that new. The respondent has not appeared. In the evidence given by the petitioner, he stated that the respondent had committed adultery with one person named in the evidence in 1922: but there was no further evidence about it. He also stated that she had misconducted herself with four or five men before she left his house. That also is not supported by any evidence. It appears that she ultimately left her husband's house in January 1923, and has not returned.

(3.) The principal question in the case is whether the letters written by the wife are sufficient in the circumstances of this case to justify the finding of adultery on the part of the respondent with an unknown person.