Divorce Law.

Hokitika Guardian, 27 June 1921, Page 1

Divorce Law.

AX IMPORTANT RULING j 11Y TEI.EORAI'H —I’Ell CHESS ASSOCIATION] WELLINGTON, June 25. A ruling given by Sir John Salmond at the Supreme Court this morning in tin l divorce suit William George Dodder v. Cecilia Rutherford Lodder, is ol great interest and importance, since it is the first decision as to the meaning of Section I of the recently amended legislation dealing with the grounds of divorce. The section provides that the Judge may, within the exercise of his discretion, grant a dissolution of marriage in cases where l the parties have lived apart under a deed of separation for a term of throe years or upwards. Tn till 1 course of a lengthy judgment, His Honour said: Tn general, it was nut in the interests of the parties or of (tie public that a man and his wife should remain hound together as husband and wife in law when for a lengthy period they had ceased to he so in fact; but the legislature recognised that as a general principle subject to exemptions and qualifications, and on account of the special circumstances had been to leave the matter to the discretion oJ' the its discretionary (lower, the Court had to consider whether (here were an v special circumstances which would render the granting of a decree inconsistent with the piddic interest. Otherwise Lhe mere fact that a man and his wife had lived apart for three years made a ground for divorce as of right. This legislation would tend to , roduee and aggravate the very - vils which it was intended to cure. The harmony of married life, lie said, was largely due to the fact that marriage was » permanent tie, which would he dissolved only for a grave cause, and only lat the cost- of public discredit to one at least of the parties. All divorce possessed the possibility of public mischief, inasmuch ns it tended to lessen the sense of responsibility with which inon and women entered into marriage, and it was for the-Court, in its discretionary authority, to weigh that, private benefit against the possibility of public mischief and to grant or refuse a dissolution accordingly. His Honour elaborated his points, setting out his intorpretition of the clause, but made uo order, either for or against a decree in the particular case as lie adjourned the matter for an agreement between the jiarties as to iiiinfcnanoo.