I will now deal with the allegations of adultery.
As Lopes L. J. states in Allet v. Allen (1894) L.R. C.A. 252, "To lay down any general rule; to attempt to define what circumstances would be sufficient and what insufficient upon which to infer the fact of adultery is impossible."" Each case must depend upon its own particular circumstances. Of course it is not necessary to prove a fact of adultery; the very act, its time and place, as there is not one case in a hundred in which that proof would be attainable. But as Lopes L.J. states later in the same case "that judgement must be exercised with caution in finding that adultery is proved on_circumstantievidence," and we must hesitate to find adultery if the circumstances are capable of any other reasonable solution.
Joseph v. Joseph L. R. '1916, P.122, Hargrave Dean J. "The Court ought not to rely on the uncorroborated evidence of the woman, a mistake to decide on the mere ipso dixit of' the woman." And in two other cases the judges exercised extreme caution in relying on the woman's uncorroborated_statement.
Getty v. Getty L. RB. (1907)
338. The respondent wife had made a written confession of adultery but did_ not appear to give evidence. Here Bucknill J. said that had it not been for the surrounding circumstances he. would have had great difficulty in acting upon the respondent's statement.
In Ginger v. Ginger L.R. 1 P.
D. p. 37 (1865). The Judge refused to act upon the testimony of a woman who said the husband had committed adultery with her, her statement being denied by the man and uncorroborated. True the woman admitted that she had led a loose life.
The charges of adultery in this case are three. All are with women unknown to the petitioner.
The first charge is that at North Szechuen Road," one signed is the uncorroborated statement of the petitioner, her statement being, that a coolie came to her house with some chit® for pay-
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.