Law:

Section:

  Witness---Whether telling truth-Trial Judge in a better posi tion to judge than Court of appeal-Divorce case-Statement as to factum of adultery.   In proceedings on a petition for dissolution of petitioner's marriage with the respondent the main question for determina tion before the trial Judge was whether he was satisfied on the evidence that the respondent had committed adultery with the co-respondent. After a careful review of the evidence, the Judge came to the conclusion that he was not so satisfied and dismissed the petition.   The Court of Appeal differed with that finding and reversed the decision of the trial Judge awarding a decree nisi to the petitioner.   In the opinion of the Board, criticism of respondent's evidence by the Court of Appeal was "without any foundation whatever."   Held, that the trial Judge had not only seen the witnesses, he had taken down their evidence in longhand, and had carefully reviewed the same in his judgment. He was therefore in a much better position to decide who was telling the truth than any Court of Appeal.   Solicitors: I. N. Mason & Co.   Solicitors: Hy. S. L. Polak & Co.   Date of hearing: 19th May 1955.   JUDGMENT   LORD OAKSEY.-----This is an Appeal by special leave from a judgment of the West Indian Court of Appeal (Mathieu Perez, C. J., Trinidad and Tobago; Collymore, C. J., Barbados; and Bell, C. J., British Guiana) dated the 30th day of January 1953, whereby the decision of the Supreme Court of Trinidad (Duke J.) dismissing with costs the petition of the first respon dent for the dissolution of his marriage with the second respondent on the ground of her adultery with the appellant was set aside and the first respondent was granted a decree nisi on the ground of the said adultery and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of both respondents in both Courts.   The now first respondent was the petitioner in the case and the appellant in the West Indian Court of Appeal (herein after called the Court of Appeal), the now second respondent was the respondent in both Courts, and the now appellant was correspondingly the…