Galler v Galler
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE HODSON |
| Judgment Date | 04 February 1954 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1954] EWCA Civ J0204-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 04 February 1954 |
[1954] EWCA Civ J0204-2
In the Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Lord Justice Stnleron
Lord Justice Jennis, and
Lord Justice Hodson
Counsel for the Appellant: MR. P. PANTO, Messrs Bernard Oberman & Go.
Counsel for the Respondent: MR. G. WILLETT, instructed by Messrs Wesley & Stansburry, Assents For Messrs E. W. Harvey & Dalton, Bournemouth.
LORD JUSTICE SINGLETON: I will ask Lord justice Hodson to give the first judgment.
This is an appeal from an Order of Mr. Commonsense BY which is rejected the prayer of the position of the husband Appellant and
The case took an unusual course, husband being Petitioner and AT that point the cross-examination of two husband had proceeded for four time on the issues of desertion and cruelty, and the learned Commissioner saw Counsel in his room, and it was then apparently agreed that it would be convenient for the issue of adultery to be decided first, leaving open the other issues, namely, the issues of desertion and cruelty. At the mid-day adjournment the cross-examination of the husband was concluded, during the latter par of which he was asked questions about the adultery which had been alleged against him in the wife's Answer. After that the husband, the matter was left there, and no application was made by Counsel on either aide to proceed with the other issues in the case. It recognized that the other issues in case no it be material,division as to adulteryMatter Not Clear
he gave which the learned Commissioner to take an unfavorable view of his truthfulness. It is quite true that questions as to credit may extend over a aide field Matter Not Clear
my judgment, he meet serious matter in this case is the we sure of the of adultery itself and the evidence called in support of it by the wife. That evidence entirely of the evidence of the with the said to have committed adultery. ThePleased case against him contained this "The Petitioner has habitually committed adultery with Gladye Florence Thompesh." No Particular were maked for on this paragraph, the pleadings the wife and at large as to the evidence which she could .
The position between the parities was this, the wife having left , 1943, there more living in the Matter Not Clear
husband, and had frequently committed adultery with him during that period in her bedroom, the bedroom in which she slept with the two girls, the eldest of them in 1951 would be six years of age. She also gave evidence that on one occasion while the family was away at Ramsgate at an hotel she committed adultery in the hotel with husband, although that was not a matter of which Counsel who Her was aware, and aware, and it was a matter which was not included in the pleaded case. She also said in her examination-in-chief that the husband had been the cause of saving a miscarriage and he had given her money to bring that end. In cross-examination. She alleged upon that, and cleared her evidence by saying than four Matter Not Clear
Galler, and she was engaged, I at the beginning of 1950, and went to JE, Avenue Roll, Swise Cottage. There she occupied a room on the floor which the Petitioner was occupying, two children's bedroom; and she says that to start with things were all right, and the Petitioner, the husband, behaved quite all right to her; and then he started attention to her, and she says they were intimate "Galler approached her about the matter."
Then he came to cases Mrs Thompson witness the learned Commissioner said; "With regard to Mrs Thompson, I have observed she was and I did not trying to make then they were. I think are gave evidence quite a forwardly, and the Matter Not Clearqueryquery###In that case the Divisional Court was dealing with an appeal from Justice. A man with whom it was alleged the wife and committed cattery and sown he had - period of -
The President went on his judgment to consider the case the case of Ginesi v. Ginesi, reported in 1940 probate at page 179, which was case depending not on a case offence, but on proof of adultery, and at page 344 he cited part of the judgment of the court in Churchman v. Churchman, reported in 1945 probate at pages 44 and "The same striot proof is required in the case of a sbtrimonial offence as is required in connection with criminal offence properly so-called". "He continued". "In Ginesi v. Ginesi the court of Appeal unreservedly approved that observation in relation to a charge of adultery, in addition, of course (as Lord Justice Worttesle: expressly observed at page 130) so the connivance; while it left open the question whether the current generality of the observation applied to other offences. Although perhaps it does not arise in in she present conect in, I would like to those to the which I then employed, and say that from the beginning of my tenure this office I have always directed juries and directed myself in the same terms there charge of adultery" …
At the bottom of the the President continued; "It is not enough in cause of this nature sorely to say;" "Here is a witness on one side, here is a witness on the other. Which de not prefer? I see, I am confess, any trace of direction by these Justice to themselves in the Lora Justice Russell in the which I have read from Station v. Station." He then went of the of a Judge in an earlier case, Spring v. Spring and Jiggins, reported in 1947 volume I all England Reports at page 386, in the effect that corporation in a case was necessary.
It has been my experience that when evidence of this kind is given in obverse cases it is treated with the caution which I have described for, I think, the obvious reason that a charge of this kind is particularly difficult to rebut. Any man who is in the position of being alone in a house with or without children may have a nurse to look after the children, or a housekeeper to look afterhim, and if that person chooses to make an accusation of this kind against him, it is a matter which he must find very difficult to deny by any affirmative evidence other then his own. A person who is making the connection is putting forward her own and is in the same kind of position as the position of an accomplice, and it has always been considered that a warning be given before evidence of that is accepted with is corporation
I have used the language which I have because since the case fo Feirmen v. Feirmen was devided was debated question proof in a divorce suit, which is a kind of civil certain, is the same as that in criminal case, and the same rules apply, has considered by the House of Lorcs in the case of Preston-Jenes v. Proston-Jones, is is reported in 1951 Appeal Cases at 391. Dermott at page said; "… I to the view, which, 'satisfied' is capable of counting something less then proof beyond reasonable count." The "satisfied" in Seciton 4 fo the Onuses Act, 1950, and there had before this case been in this country, and, I think, in the High Court of , as to whether the word "satisfied" meant something less then "satisfied beyond reasonable court", and I think the Courts of this country may be taken to have come down on the side of the that there was no distinction to be drawn between the word "satisfied" standing alone...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Bearmans Ltd v Metropolitan Police District Receiver
- Carr v Mcdonald's Australia Ltd
-
R v Dacres
...Fairman v. Fairman [1949] 1 All E.R. 938 (1949) p. 341 (Divisional Court); Davidson v. Davidson [1953] 1 All E.R. 611(Divisional Court): Galler v. Galler [1954] 1 All E.R. 536 (Court of Appeal) and ending with Ali v. Ali [1965] 3 All E.R. 480: all deal with matrimonial offences, the require......
-
Facing Complexity: Democracy, Expertise and the Discovery Process
...ofdisagreement might be ‘important enough to produce most of the effects of“fundamental”dissension about ends themselves’ (Schumpeter, 1954, p. 252).Starting from this Hayekian presentation of the challenge of complexity,Schumpeter’s workpoints to the possibility of a distinctively Austrian......
-
Voter Information Sources in a Nonpartisan Local Election
...U. Press, 1963),pp. 90-92; Bernard R. Berelson, Paul F. Lazarsfeld, and William N. McPhee, Voting (Chicago: U. of Chicago Press, 1954), p. 252. 2 Milbrath, op. cit., p. Berelson, Lazarsfeld, and McPhee, op, cit., p. 251.4 Ibid. ; Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudel, The P......