‘You do not like love – sex – do you, Mrs Appleton?’ persisted Bartle. ‘From the very moment of your marriage you were reluctant to share your husband’s bed.’
‘It was not until I met Harvey Jordan in France that I learned the joy of sex. What I did not like was rape, which is how I came to regard my sexual encounters with my husband very early on in my marriage.’
‘You loved your husband, though, didn’t you?’
‘I imagined I did, at the very beginning. It did not take me long to realize that was all it was: imagination. Which is why this action against Harvey is so ridiculous. How can a man alienate affection when no affection exists?’
‘You’ve rehearsed your story well, the two of you, haven’t you? Practically the same phrases, the same denials?’
‘There has been no rehearsal, no preparation, between Harvey and myself to defend this preposterous accusation. There didn’t need to be. All we both needed to do was to tell the truth. Which we both have.’ The flush was going from her face; Alyce even appeared to have resettled, more relaxed, in her seat.
‘Where’s the ring you wore throughout your time with Harvey Jordan in France?’
‘I’ve no idea.’
‘You’ve no idea of the whereabouts of the love token that was so precious to you?’
‘I have no idea where the joke ring is, no.’
‘Isn’t it somewhere at home, in one of those boxes in which women keep things, trinkets, that they treasure more than diamonds or gold? Things of the greatest sentimental value?’
‘I do not have such a box.’
‘You do remember him buying it and giving it to you in St Tropez, don’t you?’
‘I had forgotten, until I was reminded by your photographs.’
‘But now you do remember?’
‘Yes.’
‘What did he say when he took your hand and slipped it upon the finger from which you had so recently discarded your husband’s wedding ring?’
‘I don’t remember.’
‘Did he say it was a token of his love?’
‘I don’t remember.’
‘Did he ask you to marry him, when you were divorced and free to do so?’
‘I think I would have remembered, if he had. I don’t remember.’
‘Surely he didn’t say something like: “this is a plastic ring I want to put on your wedding finger as a joke!”?’
‘I really don’t remember,’ repeated Alyce. ‘It is you attaching such great importance to the ring. We didn’t.’
‘Except that you wore it all the time you were together.’
‘Look at your own photographs,’ invited Alyce. ‘You’ll see in most of them that I wore the sun hat and sandals I bought there. It was very hot. That was all I thought them to be, a hat and a pair of sandals.’
There was an isolated snigger from Dr Harding, from behind the rail.
‘I can see that you did, Mrs Appleton,’ agreed Battle, resuming his seat. ‘But as you’ve just told the court, you bought the hat and sandals yourself. Harvey Jordan bought the ring for you and you didn’t wear that most of the time. You wore it all the time.’
Beckwith waited until Alyce got back to her table to sit beside her lawyer before rising, and as he did so the judge said, I trust this will not be a lengthy concluding submission?’
‘I see no reason for it occupying very much more of your honour’s time, because I believe the evidence you have heard speaks for itself,’ responded Beckwith. ‘This was no instant love match, the stuff of fiction and movies. This was a brief, adult affair between two people, one a single, unattached man on vacation, the other a lonely woman about to divorce a husband for whom affection, if it had ever existed, had long ago died. Mr Bartle has attempted, with very obvious desperation, to make much of the giving of a ring as proof of his client’s claim against Harvey Jordan. Both Harvey Jordan and Alyce Appleton have described the ring episode as a silly joke, which was all it was. I submit to you, your honour, that Mr Bartle’s efforts to make it appear otherwise is an even sillier joke and an indication of his desperation, although far less sinister than the efforts to which the other side appeared prepared to go with the medical evidence of chlamydia. About which I will say nothing further, knowing as I do that your honour has reserved judgement upon it. What I do invite you to find upon the evidence is that under Section 1 -52(5) of the North Carolina statute is that Harvey William Jordan is not guilty of alienation of affections, nor of criminal conversations, and dismiss him from the proceedings.’
Judge Hubert Pullinger had listened to the submission slumped back in his chair, not appearing to make any notes. He remained that way for several moments before coming forward over his notation ledger, his throat rumbling, as it had earlier, to clear it before making a pronouncement. ‘You have, Mr Beckwith, forcibly made a submission of some substance – some passion even – which I would be ill treating with a snap ruling, without the benefit of proper reflection: a snap decision which might, even, provide you with ground for an appeal. I choose to remind you of the legal application open to me on charges of alienation of affection and criminal conversation, between which there is an important division. The date of separation of the parties is important to prove alienation of affections and I have yet to hear sworn evidence to prove the depositions that have already been provided to the court. Essential to that is the malicious conduct of your client, Harvey Jordan, in contributing or causing such loss. The parties to the marriage must still be together in order to prove this claim. I have yet to hear further about that, although there is every indication that by the time Mrs Appleton met and engaged in admitted adultery with Harvey Jordan the contesting parties were not together.
‘The action of criminal conversation, however, is more complex. It is a lawsuit sounding in tort – an injustice to the person – based upon sexual intercourse between the defendant, your client, and the plaintiff’s spouse, Mrs Appleton. Further to define the law, a criminal conversation is a strict liability tort, because the only thing the plaintiff, Alfred Appleton, has to establish is an act of sexual intercourse, the existence of a valid marriage between the plaintiff and the adulterous spouse, and the bringing of a lawsuit within the applicable statute of limitations. It is not a defence that the defendant did not know his sexual partner was married, which indeed, Mr Beckwith, you did not advance. Nor is it a defence that the adulterous partner consented to the sex, which again you have not advanced. Nor is it open to you to plead that a separation already existed, that the marriage was unhappy or that the defendant’s sex with the spouse did not otherwise affect the plaintiff’s marriage. Most important among other caveats, which I will not at this stage explore further, is that the plaintiff had also been unfaithful…’
There was the familiar pause, for further throat clearing. Beckwith, expressionless, was sitting tensed forward, leaving the judgement to be recorded by the court stenographer. Bartle was doing the same but there was already a satisfied smile settling on his face. On that of Alfred Appleton, too.
‘None of which diminishes the submission that you have made before me today. It is my function to interpret and administer the law, as it has been proscribed. Even before the full and proper beginning of this action, matters arose which greatly disturb me and upon which I have yet to adjudicate. I do not believe that I would be properly administering the law, which is my duty, if I found for your submission and dismissed your client from this matter. As I have, in the matter of the medical evidence, I intend to reserve my judgement, pending the full hearing.’
‘Fuck it!’ Jordan heard his lawyer say. It was what Jordan thought, too.
Twenty-Five
After granting David Bartle’s instantly sought, and unopposed, application on behalf of Appleton for the divorce hearing to be in closed session, Pullinger adjourned until the following week, citing his need to use the intervening days to ‘tidy the loose ends of this wholly unfortunate beginning’, and once more Jordan and the two lawyers gathered in Reid’s Raleigh office to review the judge’s rejection.
‘We should have known about that goddamned ring,’ complained Reid at once, openly accusing.
‘If I’d remembered it I would have told you,’ said Jordan, no longer deferring to either lawyer, although glad now that he and Beckwith hadn’t split after their earlier disputes. ‘It was exactly as Alyce and I told the court: a
