RELIEF REFUSED

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 274, 13 August 1921, Page 8

RELIEF REFUSED

UNSUCCESSFUL .PETITIONS IN DIVORCE ILL-TREATED WIFE RESISTS PROCEEDINGS JUDGE’S COMMENT ON HUSBAND’S CONDUCT By Telegraph —Press Association. Christchurch, August 12 Mr. Justice Herdman, in two judgments delivered to-day in tho Supreme Court in divorce, dealt with clause 4 of the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act of last year, which makes divorce much easier than it was before. In «ach case heard by His Honour a separation and maintenance order had been made by a Magistrate against the husband, and in each case the husband had petitioned for divorce on the ground of separation for at least three years under the order. His Honour dismissed both petitions. One of the petitions was by Arthur Reginald Suter Holloway, who is in orders as a clergyman of the Anglican Church, bul. is not actively engaged in church work, being an agricultural instructor under tho Canterbury Education Board at Timaru. (n teio case, Mr. Justice Herdman said: “1 have .come to the conclusion that I should exercise my discretion against the petitioner in the present proceedings. Ito bases his chiim to have his marriage dissolved upon a separation order made against him by a Magistrate at tho instance of his wife on April 10, 1915. The grounds upon which the separation order was made were that he had been guilty of persistent cruelty to his wife and children, and, in particular, that he had assaulted her and threatened to ent her throat, and had habitually used insulting nnd vile language to her, and had kicked and injured his daughter, who was tin years of age. and had failed to provide ilis wife with adequate maintenance. The petitioner now says that these allegations were untrue and that he allowea the order to pass without opposition. “Whatever the petitioner did or did not in fact do at the time the Magistrate made the order does not seem to nio to matter now. The Magistrate heard the complaint, and must have acted upon some proof when he made tho order. He must have considered any consent to an order filed by petitioner, and he must have decided that some if not all of the allegations marie by the wife had been proved or admitted. If petitioner filed a consent—and it appears that he did—then his consent, if it had any legal effect at all, amounted to an Admission of the charges made against him.

"Without any hesitation T decide that in such a case relief 'should not be granted. Neither upon the ground of public interest nor upon the ground that a dissolution of the marriage iray bo of advantage to either petitioner or respondent, or both, should the Court interfere? Tlio respondent does not want the marriage dissolved, and the petitioner is certainly not entitled to receive any favour at the hands of tho Court. If I grant a decree in this case, then it seems to me that I lay down iho principle that a husband, having grown tired of his wife and wishing to hare his marriage dissolved, may ill-treat her until in despair she is forced to leave him and apply to a Magistrate for a separation order, thus enabling the husband, if the order made against him remains in full force for three years, io petition successfully to have his marriage dissolved.' it is no doubt true that the marriage between the parties has in fact come to an enfl.Jiut if tho termination of matrimonial relations has been brought about, not by the party who resists the proceedings, but by the deliberate and unjustifiable misconduct of the party who seeks the Court’s favour, the Court should, in ray opinion, declare that it will refuse the relief sought, for the reason that the petitioner’s misconduct has disentitled him to any consideration.”