BREAKING THE BONDS

Hokitika Guardian, 7 November 1924, Page 4

BREAKING THE BONDS

DIYORCE BOOM IX SYDNEY. SYDNEY, October 23. The feverish haste with which petitions are being lodged at the l)i vnrcc Office in Sydney would almost suggest that the Divorce Court was about to close its doors. So far this year, 1352 petitions have been lodged, and by the end of the year it is anticipated that the tuial will have reached well over 1000. Last year’s record was 1501. Until the Judges in Divorce have been sitting continuously in an endeavour to cope with the list, hut to stem the tide of divorce almost suggests the folly of Dame l’artington. ’To get a divorce in Australia is not

at all a dillictilt task—much < a.- er thau in New Zealand—but it is not to be compared with the process in famous Bcno, in the United States. This was revealed before one of the .Bulges in Divorce in Sydney a few days ago. The facts relating to a divorce suit taken by a woman in Iteno a year or two back—the husband, incidentally, is now seeking a divorce in Sydney from the woman—revealed letters from the wife’s Iteno lawyers which are delightfully frank, and which, in their eulogy of the Iteno divorce laws, look not unlike the boost prospectus of some oil sompany. The letters wore to the woman’s husband, f.isten to this one: "We have requested your wife ... to permit us to write to you and tell you that for some months past she has been making her home in Nevada. She has consulted us, and has retained us as her counsel to bring an action for divorce. Our Nevada divorce law is perhaps the most liberal and effective in the world.”

The letter proceeds:—"The three elements which make our law upon divorce so popular are the following:— (I) Our short period of residence, six months’ actual presence only being required ; (2) the fact that the plaintiff's testimony alone is sufiicicnt; that is, that no corroborative evidence is required ; (•’)) the fact that we have hut one kind of divorce, and that is absolute, freeing both parties immed ately, without penalties or disabilities being placed upon either.” All that is necessary for the husband to do, according to the letter, was to sign ail “ appearance.” That it was pointed out, would make the divorce granted in America valid beyond question “ for you in Australia.’ The husband, however, to make assurance doubly sure, got his own divorce here.