DIVORCE APPROVED

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 57, 4 September 1926, Page 10

DIVORCE APPROVED

WHEN HUSBAND A CRIMINAL

OPINION OF THE HOUSE

MILDBED ELAINE SMYTH BILL

PASSED.

The House of Bei)resentatives yesterday passed a private Bill granting Mrs. Mildred Elaine • Smyth a divorce from her husband, Maurice James Walkington Smyth, on the ground that her ' marriage was induced by Smyth's false statement, and that he was undergoing imprisonment as an habitual criminal. This matter has been before tho House for some time. During the debate on the . Bill several members expressed the opinion that the law should give a woman the right of divorce where her husband was declared to be an habitual criminal. In opposing the Bill, Mr. T. W. Bhodes /Thames) said that if a woman made a bad bargain, as many did, was she not entitled to have the law invoked so that she could get a divorce? The House should be very careful about the matter, an 3 a special facility for divorce should not be made in one case. Divorce was being made too easy. He would like more information on the subject. If provision'was to be made to meet the case of Mrs. Smyth, legislation should also be passed „ to meet all other cases of the kind. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. H. E. Holland) could see no difference between this private Bill and an ordinary petition favourably reported on by a Committee. The facts in the case were clear. He agreed, that the House ought to be very careful in such matters, but Parliament was the final Court of Appeal. There was not a member who believed that any respectable, woman .should be compelled to live with a professional criminal. It was not good for society that that should be the case. (Voices: "Hear, hear"). He did not think there was anything to be said against the course taken by the promoters of the Bill. Mr. F. F. JSockly (Bo^orua) said the Committee had taken every precaution to get at the facts and took evidence on- oath. J Mr. J.. Mason (Napier), who was in . charge of the Bill, stated that it was j true that no British Parliament had granted a divorce on the ground of crime, but there was the case of Edward Gibbon Wakefiold, where tho Bri- j tish Parliament passed a Bill to nullify ! his marriage with a girl whom he had abducted, it being held that the marriage was brought about by false pretences. In the present case the evidence showed that Mrs. Smyth had been lulled by Smyth into a false state vt security. Smyth, a man «oing under ten aliases, had stated thai he was worth £40,000, and would be inheriting a title in Ireland. There was no doubt that Smyth had set out to deceive the girl. Under the Boman law, in 421 and 449, imprisonment for crime was a ground for divorce. Under the Prussian Code of 1794. and the Napoleonic Code, and in 39 of the States of America, imprisonment was a ground for divorce. Howe/er, the present divorce was being, sought, not on the ground of imprisonment,' but on the ground that the marriage was induced by the false statement of Smyth, and j that he was undergoing imprisonment as an habitual criminal. ■ Mr. E. J." Howard (Christchurch South) said that although he believed the divorce should be granted, he would have to vote against the third reading, because he believed that the girl did know of the man's career before she married him, whereas the report of the Committee said that she • did not know anything of his career. It would bo against his conscience to voto for tho third reading on the ground set out in the Committee-s report, as he had listened to the evidence carefully and was satisfied that the woman did know the man's previous history. ."This is probably the most serious matter that has been before this House since . I have been a member," remarked Mr. Howard. "Legislation should be brought in giving a woman the right j to proceed for divorce once we have declared a man to be an habitual cri- i minal."_ Mr. Howard said he believed tho findings of the Committee were in the best interests of the woman and of ' New Zealand, but that the case would not be the last of the kind the House would have to tackle. j The third reading was agreed to on ' the voices, and the Bill was passed,