SAMARAWEERA v. JAYAWARDANA.

SAMARAWEERA v. JAYAWARDANA.

D. C., Matara, 2,133.

Action for divorce-Vagueness of allegation of misconduct-Judgment of District Judge founded on evidence heard by another District Judge-Irregularity -Courts Ordinance, s. 89.

An allegation of misconduct, in an action for divorce, ought to specify the date and place of the act complained of.

Though The Courts Ordinance, section 89, provides that in the case of a removal of a judge, while the suit is pending, another judge may take up the case and act on the evidence already recorded, yet such a course should not be followed except where such evidence is of a merely formal character.

In a case where the decision depends altogether upon the credit to be given to the plaintiff and his witnesses, it is not proper for a judge who has not heard the plaintiff and his witnesses to decide on their veracity and trustworthiness, when he has the means in his power of judging for himself by calling and examining them.

THIS was an action for a divorce on the ground of adultery of the first defendant (plaintiff's wife) with the second defendant. No specific act of adultery was charged, but the follow

Click Here to Read the rest of this document