The Ashburton Guardian. Magna Est Veritas et Prevalebit. MONDAY NOVEMBER 1, 1886. THE LAW OF DIVORCE

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1395, 1 November 1886, Page 2

The Ashburton Guardian. Magna Est Veritas et Prevalebit. MONDAY NOVEMBER 1, 1886. THE LAW OF DIVORCE

While it is not desirable, in the interests of society, that the dissolution of the marriage fie should be rendered too easy, and while we should be sorry to see in New Zealand so light an estimation of the sanctities of the holiest of all human relationships as obtains in some parts of the world, yet we are of opinion that the existing law as to the grounds upon which divorce can be granted needs amendment. Here, as in England, divorce absolute can only be obtained, at the suit of the husband, for unfaithfulness to the marriage vow on the part of the wife, and, at the suit of the wife, for cruelty or desertion, accompanied by unfaithfulness on the husband’s part, the latter cause alone, if unaccompanied by cruelty or desertion, not entitling the woman, although it does entitle the man to release from the bonds of matrimony. Thus the old adage, “ What is sauce for the goose,” eta, is not carried out in this case, although strict justice requires that it should be. That, at anyrate, is the opinion of the House of Representatives which two sessions ago, when a Divorce Law Amendment Bill was under considera tion, carried an amendment which would have made the law uniform as regards the sexes, and, though it is arguable that unfaithfulness on the wife’s part is more disastrous to the peace of the family than on the part of the husband, we concur on general principles in the desirableness of the proposed uniformity. The Bill referred to, however, failed to pass because certain other amendments, proposed by the member for New Plymouth, Mr SamuJ, led to so much discussion that it was found impossible to carry it through all its stages, the intention of the amendments referred to being to allow of proceedings for divorce being taken in cases where either husband or wife is sentenced to a long term of imprisonment, or is hopelessly insane, or has deserted the other for a given period of years. These appear to us to be perfectly reasonable grounds for a dissolution of marriage and, indeed, the necessity for some amendment of the law in this direction is clearly manifested by the occurrence of such a case as that of Thomas Hall. Writing upon the subject of our present remarks in connection with that case, a Wellington contemporary (the Post) says ”As the law now stands Mrs Hall, the victim of the diabolical cruelty for which Hall has been sentenced to penal servitude for life, still remains legally the wife of the man who tried to poison her. There is no loophole of escape. The unfortunate woman remains bound for life to the convict. 'lhere is something terribly revolting in the idea of her young life, already so fearfully, blasted, being bound by any tie to her would-be murderer. Surely the law which deprives man of other civil rights, including liberty for the remainder of life, should also terminate all conjugal bonds or rights. Had Hall been proved guilty of adultery, the law would have dissolved the marriage, for of the cruelty there can be no doubt, but because the cold blooded villain has not been proved to be an adulterer he remains a husband as long as he and his wife live. The law should certainly be altered to meet such a case as this. We do not say that in every case of imprisonment, even where the sentence is for life, divorce should be given as a right, but prima Jade, continued desertion, apparently hopeless insanity, or lengthened sentences of imprisonment should all be considered as justifying a dissolution of marriage. Especially should this be the case in instances like the present one, where, even if the sentence were remitted to-morrow, it would be impossible that conjugal relations could ever be restored between the parties.” With this view of the matter we entirely concur, and we hope that the Premier, who last session promised, if opportunity served, to bring forward a Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act Amendment Bill, embodying the amendment carried upon Mr Tole’s Bill of 1885, and the proposals of Mr Samuel before referred to, will early next session submit to Parliament a measure in this direction, as to the necessity for which there can scarcely be two opinions.