THE DIVORCE LAW

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 37, 8 November 1920, Page 4

THE DIVORCE LAW

AMENDING BILL PASSED

IMPORTANT NEW CLAUSES ADDED

The Hon. E. P. Lee (Minister of Justice) on .■Saturday afternoon moved the second reading of the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes' Amendment Bill, which ho proceeded to explain to the House. Clause 2. he said, gave tho Court the power to exercise its discretion where formerly it had ai'o such power. Tho clause amended a section of tho Actdealing with petitions for restitution of conjugal rights. In the past, orders for restitution had been granted in some cases in which tho Court, if it had had tho power to exercise its discretion, would not have granted them. Section 3 restored the law to the position in which it had. been before tho passing of the Act of 1907. It gave the Court the right to grant a decreo nisi whero an order for restitution of conjugal rights had been disobeyed. This had been made tho law in 1904, but the section had been repealed beenuso of an incautious remark made by the late Mr. Justice Denniston during certain divorce proceedings. Tho remark had been construed to mean something different from what it. was intended to mean. Clause 4of the Bill provided that it should bo lawful for those who had been separated for three years by a, deed of separation or a iudicial order of separation to get a divorce. If the House expressed a desire to increase the' term to five years he would have-no objection to offer. He thought the House would agree that where there had been a judicial separation and the parties had lived apart for, say, five years, and there was no chance of their coming together again, it was in the interests of tho communitythat tho Court should have ipower to grant a dissolution of the marriage. ' The Minister moved to add to the Bill the following new clauses, specifying grounds for divorce:—

On the ground that the respondent has been convicted of, and sentenced to imprisonment 'for 6even years or upwnrds, for attempting to commit the murder of, or wounding, or doing actual bodily harm to, tho petitioner or any child of the petitioner or respondent. On the ground that the respondent is a person of unsound mind, and is unlikely to recover, nnd has been confined as such in New Zealand in an institution within the 'meaning of 'the Mental Defectives Act, 1911, or in a like institution in any other country of the British dominions for . a period or periods not less in tho aggregate than seven years withm, tho period of ton years immediately preceding tho filing of the petition. On the ground that the respondent is a person of unsound mind, and is unlikely to recover, nnd has been continuously a person of unsound mind for tho period of 6even years imnmdiately preceding the filing of the petition and during tho final thren years of the said period of seven yeaTS has been confined as such in. New Zealand in an institution within tho meaning of tho Mental Defectives Act, 1911, or in a like institution in any other country of the British dominions. ' The Leador of the Opposition- (Mr. Wiiford) supported the Hill. He did not we any reason why the period of three years' judicial separation should be increased If the principle was sound, the noriod was. quite long enough. Tie would support any change ln> tho law that would prevent a man rejoining his wife and possibly propagating children after ho hod been mentally unsound for aperiod of seven years. The uumbor of divorces was not as _?reat as people lmngiTinu 1 from a rwusal of the Court reports. Cases often were passed on from one sitting to another, so that they apposed in the lists more than once. Oases r.amo to "Wellington from all over New Zealand. The present law, said Vfr \Vilford, did not allow n wosm» to get divorce' on the* ground of habitual cruelty. If the cruelty was coupled with drunkenness and failure to maintain, the wife Could ask for a divorce after four long years. But the la\v did TfHi consider drunkenness i» \b*elf to be cruelty, even if the husband came home drunk four nights a -week. The laws,of divorce in this country certainly woro not too wide. Tho law ought not tc forec any woman to live with a man who was a brute and a cur to her, and |.« regarded the law's insistence on tho four-year period «s » disgrace. The Bill was put through committee villi tho new clauses proposed by the Minister. Clause i, dealing with divorce in cases of judicial separation, was amended, on the motion of Mr. v7ilford, to conform to thd -wording of the 1913 Act. The Bill was passed.

GGOD PROGRESS SESSION MAY END TO-MOEKOW. "We are KetVmß through the business very satisfactorily. :vnd 1., think it is quite certain that we wil be able to finish the session on Tuesday evening, sauTThe' Prime Minister m Uie House of Representatives on Saturday afternoon after the House had passed six Bills. Mr Massev added that the Finance, Bill would bo ready far the consideration of the House'on Monday morning. It was a Bill of about forty clauses, a sort of financial "waphing-un" Bill, and it contained ' provision for a loan for hydroelectric purposes. The other Bills to be dealt with, were tho Legislature Amendment Bill, the Law Practitioners Amendment Bill, a portion of the main/'Wash-ing-Up" Bill and the Appropriation Bill, with the Supplementary Estimates.

DUTY ON IMPORTED CEMENT NOT LIKELY TO BE REIMPOSED FOR A TIME. \ The cement shortazc was mentioned in Hie Ttoiise on Saturday morning by Mr. J. A. Nash (Palmerston North), who brought to tho notice of the Prime Minister n communication he had received from the Kairanga County Council. The letter suggested tbnfc in view of the fact that the Government lad not for some considerable time received any revenue from tho duty on imported cement, and in view also of the aeuto shortage of the commodity in the Dominion,' the Government should_ not decline to allow nnlimitgd Quantities to bo imported free of duty. If the suggest:on made by the council were given »ITect to, Mr. Nash submitted, it would he a great help to the local bodies throughout the cnuntrv. Mr. Mns?ev replied that everyonel;new there was nn extraordinary deninnd for lomoiit. and on account of that feci'-the Government bad for the lime I ring remitted the duty on imported cement. Of course.' tho question was one lliat would 'mvp to go before Cabinet, but so fur as ho knew there was no intention to rcimnose the duty iu«t at nresont. Tho largest cement'works in New Zealand— Hio.se at 'Whanearei—had been considerably handicapped just lately bv the fact that the -sine en which (lev do. nended of their coal supnlios had been Hooded by heavy' rains. That trouble should, of course, ho remedied in a very fc* days, when there should bo nn increase in the output. Tn the meantime there was a demand for cement from everv part of New Zealand. Judging by the demand, the amount of building in progress at the present time must bo enormous. He believed it was. lie bad not meant to say that there was no coal coming out of tho mine, he had referred to (tho HTkurangi mine); but the output had been much reduced.