Todd v. Todd.
1943Present. Moseley S.P.J.
TODD v. TODD.
In thb Matter of a Petition under the Ceylon DivorceJurisdiction Order in Council, 1936.
Divorce—Respondent’s adultery with X-—Admission by respondent—CeylonDivorce Jurisdiction Order in Council, 1936.
In an action for divorce on the ground of respondent’s adultery with X.the Court may act on the admission of respondent,.provided it has noreason to doubt the genuineness of the admission.
HIS was a petition for divorce under the Ceylon Divorce JurisdictionOrder in Council 1936, and the Ceylon (Non-domiciled parties)
Divorce Rules, 1936.
C. W. VanGeyzel, for the petitioner.—The chief item of evidence
against the respondent is her admission of adultery with X containeda letter by her to the peititoner. This, though not evidence against
MOSELEY J.—Todd v. Todd.
(Eliyatamby v. Eliyatamby’) is, it is submitted, evidence against herreven if uncorroborated, provided the Court is satisfied that it is genuineand was not made for the purpose of the suit—Robinson v. Robison andLane *; Williams v. Williams and Padfielda; Le Marchant v. Le Marchantand Ratelif
The petitioner’s proof, however, goes further than that and corroboratesthe admission inasmuch as a hotel register shows that both the respondentand X stayed at the same hotel and so had opportunities for misconduct,and there is also evidence from which the inference is irresistible that Xkept the respondent in funds ever since she left the petitioner.
August 3, 1943. Moseley J.—
This is a husband’s suit for dissolution of marriage on the groundof the wife’s adultery with X. The latter was not made a co-respondentin the suit, since it appeared to the Court that there was no evidenceagainst him except the confession of the respondent. The question fordecision is whether the Court should act on such a confession, where itis not corroborated by other evidence. Three letters written by therespondent to the petitioner were put in evidence in one of which shestated that she had lived with X in Colombo. That an opportunityof so doing had occurred was indeed indicated by the production of ahotel register which makes®it appear that X spent one night at a hotelwhere the respondent was staying at the time. In another letter, writtenfrom South Africa, she stated that she was living under X’s protectionand was being supported by him. She expressed their intention of marry-ing as soon as her release from the present marriage may beobtained.
Several authorities were brought to my notice which go to show thatthe Court may in a proper case act on such evidence. In Williams v.Williams and Padfield= Wilde J.O. referred to the great danger of relyingentirely on such confessions. “ In each case ” said the learned Judge“the question will be, whether all reasonable ground for suspicion is' removedThis authority was followed by Hannen P., in Le Mar-
chdnt v. Le Marchant and Ratelif ° where it was considered that the con-fession by the wife was beyond doubt bona fide and the Court felt boundto.’act upon it. '
In the present case it may well be that the main object of the res-pondent’s admissions Was to facilitate the obtaining of her freedom.The letters are extremely frank and I have no reason to doubt thegenuineness of the admissions. There is no suggestion of collusion.
There will be a decree nisi returnable in six months.
Cur. adu. vult.
Decree nisi entered.
27 N. L. R. 396.
27 L. J. P. 91.
13 L. T. R. 610.
* 34 L. T. R. 610.
‘ 13 L. T. R. (N.S.) p. 610.6 34 L. T. R. (N.S.) p. 367.