Why we are going to oppose the granting of this petition, because of the conflicting evidence given in the Senate committee and before the committee of the House of Commons. In the House of Commons committee evidence was given by several of the witnesses to the effect that the co-respondent in this case was intoxicated at the time of his arrival on the day the offence was supposed to have been committed, some three or four years prior to the time the evidence was given. On page 19 of the evidence the following questions and answers appear:
Q. Would you tell the honourable senators the facts you have known about an adultery?
A. It was in August, 1951. We were out in St. Eustache sur le Lac for the summer.
By the Chairman (Senator Roebuck):
Q. That is, the family was there, the doctor, his wife and you?
A. That's right, and the little girl. There was one afternoon, a Saturday afternoon, Mrs. Ferron sent me out to the restaurant at Roger Beach to phone Dr. Ferron to see if he was coming out that night. At the time my brother had come to see me for the week end. Before we left she had given him a few drinks and he was drunk.
The evidence before our committee was that the man was drunk on his arrival. One of the witnesses said that.