THE DIVORCE EXTENSION BILL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1568, 26 May 1887, Page 3

THE DIVORCE EXTENSION BILL.

Should it happen by any chance that [ the storm impending over the Tariff I question exhaust itself without wrecking the Ministerial ship and bringing the life of the present Parliament to a premature close, the Bill introduced by Mr Samuel, member for New Plymouth, to amend the law of divorce will doubtless come on fcr discussion. That measure is not to be confounded with the one which was rejected a few days ago m the Legislative Council, although it proceeds on somewhat similar lines. It proposes that any married person may present a petition to the Supreme Court praying for a dissolution of marriage on any one of the following grounds, viz. :— (i.) That the respondent has, without just cause or excuse, wilfully deserted ...the. petitioner, and, without any suchcaure or excuse, left him or her so deserted during three years or upwards continuously before the presentation of the petition ; (2.) That the respondent, being, the husband, has, by continued habits of drunkenness during two years and upwards before the presentation of the petition, habitually left his wife without the means of support or habitually been guilty of cruelty towards her; or that the respondent, being the wife, has, by such habits for a like period, habitually neglected her domestic duties or rendered herself unfit to discharge them j (3.) That the respondent is and for not less than twelve months before the presentation of the petition has been imprisoned for some crime under sentence, or a commuted sentence, for a term of seven years or upwards ; or, being a husband, has, by frequent convictions for crime, habitually left his wife without the means of support; (4.), That the respondent has within six months previously to the presentation of the petition been convicted of an assault upon the petitioner inflicting actual bodily harm, or of having attempted to murder the petitioner, or of having assaulted the petitioner with intent to inflict grevious bodily harm, or that the respondent has repeatedly during such period assaulted and cruelly beaten the petitioner; (5.) That the respondent, being the husband, has within six months before the presentation of the petition been guilty of adultery ; (6.) That the respondent is incurably insane, and has been confined m a lunatic asylum within the Colony of New Zealand for the space of not less than three years continuously before the presentation of the petition. The first four sub-sections are substantially identical with the like provisions of the Divorce Extension Bill recently passed by the New Soulh Wales Assembly on the motion of. Sir Alfred Stephen, but which makes no provision for the dissolution of the marriage bond m case of the insanity of either party. Mr Samuel's Bill also differs from that oi Sir Alfred Stephen m putting the sexes on an equality before the law as regards adultery, the same remedy being proposed m regard to the wife that now obtains with regard to the husband. This is not only strictly just, but so far as 'the New Zealand legislature is concerned is only a reaffirmation of its already expressed opinion. We have never been able to see why the law should allow tbe husband the right of divorce for the infidelity of the wife, and refuse that right to the wife for the infidelity of the husband, unless cruelty or desertion can also be proved, and we hope that Mr Samuel will be successful m getting this blot removed from our Statute Book. The Bill under notice like that of Sir Alfred Stephen very ! properly takes care to provide for cases m which both parties are m fault by enacting that "if m the opinion of the Court the petitioner's own habits or conduct induced or largely contributed to the wrong complained of the petition may, at the discretion ol the Court, be dismissed." In all other cases it gives the Court discretionary powers either absolutely to apnul the marrjage or 10. ciepree tjie suspension of the nuptial relation providing that «' if the Court is satisfied that the case of the petitioner is proved, it shall be lawful for the Court to pronounce a decree dissolving the marriage, subject, nevertheless, to such provisions for the temporary suspension of such decree as it respects both or one of the parties as the Court shall under the circumstances thinlf proper." Altogether the measure is, \ye think, a very wise and necessary one,