Nusserwanji Pestonji Wadia v Eleonora Wadia

1913 Indlaw MUM 35, AIR 1914 BOM 211B

Armitage v The Attorney General
75 L J P 42
Armytage v Armytage
(67) L.J. P. 90
Bailey v Bailey
1903 30 ILR(Cal) 490
Bater v Bater
94 L. T. 835
Bourne v Keane
[1919] A.C. 815
Brodie v Brodie
164 E. R. 995
England. Thornton v Thornton
(1886) 11 P. D. 176
Giordano v Giordano
1913 (40) ILR(Cal) 215
Grant v Grant
1839 2 Curt. Rep. 16
In re Norton Settlement
[1908] 1 Ch. 471
Keyes v Keyes
90 L. J. P. 242
Le Mesurier v Le Mesurier
(1895 A. C. 517
Ledgard v Bull
1885 (9) ILR(All) 191
Municipal Law. In Banerjee v Banerjee
(1899) 3 C. W. N. 250
Niboyat v Niboyat
(1879) 4 P. D. 1
Parish of St John, Hampstead v Henry Horace Bowell Cotton
(1886) L. R. 12
Queen Empress v Burah
1879 (4) ILR(Cal) 172
Queen v Burah
1879 4 ILR(Cal) 172
Ramsay v Boyle
1903 (30) ILR(Cal). 489
Rex v. Hammersmith, Superintendent, Registrar of
Marriages
(1917) 1 K. B. 634
Shaw v Gould
(1868) L. R. 3 H. L. 55
Taff Vate Railway v Amalgamated Society of Railway
Servants
(1901) A. C. 426
The Governor and Company of the Bank of England v
Vagliano Brothers
(1891) L. R. A. C. 107
The Queen v Burah
(1879) 4 ILR(Cal) 172
Tollemache v Tollemache
(1859) I S. W. and Tr. 557
Warrender v Warrender
(1835) 2 Clark & Finnelly 488
Warter v Warter
(1890) 15 P. D. 152
 Wilson v Wilson
(1872) L. R. 2 P. & D. 435
Zycklinsky v Zycklinsky
1862 2 Sw. & Tr. 420

*198 Brown v Brown and Paget, the Queen's Proctor Intervening

Courts of Probate and Divorce
14 March 1874
(1872-75) L.R. 3 P. & D. 198
1874 March 14
Evidence—Cross—examination as to Adultery—32 & 33 Vict. c. 68.
A party to a cause, who is produced as a witness on his own behalf, and in his examination-
in-chief denies the truth of some of the charges of adultery contained in the pleadings, and is
asked no questions as to others, is liable to be asked, and is bound to answer, questions in
cross-examination respecting all the charges contained in the pleadings.
THIS was a suit by a husband for a dissolution of marriage. After a decree nisi had been
pronounced the Queen's Proctor, intervening, filed pleas wherein he charged the petitioner
with adultery.
The petitioner traversed the allegations in the pleas and the cause came on for hearing
before the Judge Ordinary by a special Jury.
On behalf of the Queen's Proctor, some of the women with whom the adultery was alleged to
have been committed, were examined in support of the charge. The petitioner was examined
on his own behalf, and denied that he had been guilty of adultery with any of the women who
had given evidence, and whose names were mentioned in the Queen's Proctor's pleas and
particulars.
Sir J. Karslake, A.G. (Staveley Hill, Q.C., and Searle, with him), for the Queen's Proctor, in
cross-examination, asked the petitioner whether he had committed adultery with women
other than those whose names were mentioned in the pleadings.
Dr. Spinks, Q.C. (Dr. Tristram with him), for the petitioner, objected.
*199
Sir J. Karslake referred to the 6th paragraph of the plea: “That in and during the years 1871
and 1872 the petitioner has frequented a public-house called the Mischief, in Oxford Street,
and a public-house called the King's Arms, in Hanway Street, and the Oxford Hall, in Oxford
Street, and the Royal Music Hall, in Holborn, and that he has on numerous occasions
committed adultery with various prostitutes whom he has met in the places aforesaid, and
whose names are unknown to the Queen's Proctor, at divers houses in the neighbourhood of
the said places.” The usual order for particulars had been made, and in pursuance of that
order the Queen's Proctor had made an affidavit that from the facts within his knowledge he
was unable to give particulars of this allegation. The petitioner having tendered himself as a
witness to deny the adultery charged by the Queen's Proctor, is liable to be cross-examined
as to this allegation.
Dr. Spinks referred to the proviso in the 3rd section of the Evidence Further Amendment Act,
1869 1 The petitioner is only liable to cross-examination as to those acts of adultery which he
has denied in his examination-in-chief. His denial having been confined to the specific
charges with women whose names are mentioned, he is not liable to be asked, or bound to
answer, a question respecting a general charge which he has not denied, and in support of
which no evidence has been produced.
[THE JUDGE ORDINARY. The witness having been called for the purpose of disproving
charges of adultery within the limits of the pleadings, and having denied some of those
charges, I think he is liable to have questions put to him in cross-examination as to all the
charges, and that he is bound to answer these questions. I am clearly of opinion that the
Attorney General is entitled to prove, by whatever evidence may be legitimate, instances of
adultery under the general charge, besides those instances which are specified; and that he
is at liberty to cross-examine a petitioner, who has tendered himself as a witness, respecting
all the charges that are within the pleadings, including the general charge.]
The petitioner then admitted that he had committed adultery with women whom he had met
at the places named in the Queen's *200 Proctor's 6th plea, although he denied that he had
been guilty of adultery with the women whose names were mentioned.
The jury found that the petitioner had been guilty of adultery with two of the women named
in the plea, and with women whose names were unknown, and the decree nisi was rescinded,
and the petition dismissed.
No judgment accompanied this report.