DIVORCE LAW

Hokitika Guardian, 8 July 1931, Page 5

DIVORCE LAW

AN IMPORTANT POINT, ( By Telegraph—Per Press-Association) ; WELLINGTON, July 7. | During the 1930 session, Parliament •passed the Divorce , and y .Matrimonial Causes Amendment Act, which provides that where a . wife living inlNew Zealand prays for a divorce on any ground, and has been living in New Zealand lor not less than three years, •immediately preceding the filing of the petition, and has such an intention of residing permanently in New Zealand as would constitute New Zealand domicile -in a case of meme, sole, and has been living apart, from, her husband for. a period, .of , three years, she shall be deemed to be 'domiciled there for two years at least within the meaning of Section 10 of. this Act.

;In pursuance of this legislation, Florence Cate Worth petitioned in the Supreme Court on. June 11, asking for a divorce from her > husband, Charles Stanhope Worth, of Nottingham, ; England, she alleging an agreement • for , separation and desertion. , She said in her evidence that she ' was married to Worth in Capetown in 1902, and lived with him until 1911, when she was forced to leave -him, coming to" New Zealand, and her husband going , to, England, where he was domiciled when the proceedings were served on him. At the hearing the question . arose as to whether the legislation was intra vires oh the part of 'New Zealand, in, that it purported to alter the status of a person not domiciled in Now Zealand, and to grand a divorce against a, v

husband who had never been in New Zealand: . . .

; The presiding Judge,, Mr ■ 'Justice Blair, removed the proceedings into the Court of Appeal, and both divisions of that Court have been' summoned to hear them there. Accordingly, on the Bench of the . Appeal Court, which is hearing the case to-day, are the Chief Justice (Sir M. .Myers), and Justices ‘Herdman, Heed, Adams, MacGregor, Blair and Kennedy, y ;

, ;;, r,L • ■ INTiER'ESITNG argument. >*• • POSSIBILITY OF ; CONFLICTS.' : ■ Ev' July .7. •In the AAppehl Court rip the "' divorce case, Worth' Versus Worth, >. Mr ter, .'afte't; stating’ i incidents leading -to • the divorce, submitted Hhafr; Mrs - Worth ■ had brought-' herself withinthe four walls' of ythe i 930 Statute, and was entitled to a divorce; Parliament, he said, was empowered- by its Constitution : Act of 1852 to make laws for the ... peace, order 'aqd'i good • of. New. Zealand. It had been held ..by the Full Court of New Zealand "in the case Poingdestre. versus , Poingdestre,' in 1909;: that questions of divorce and of status were" questions . relative to the peace, order and - good government"bf- New •’Zealsindv- Jt 1 might"’- : be that the effect of granting a divorce under this, legislation would-be that the . parties would' still be held to be man and wife in another country.; but that was no concern of the Courts of New Zealand.' It was. plain that the Legislature intended. to override, the rules ’of private • international law, ahd. it. was also plain-that it was competent to .do so if it so desired, prior to 1930, it■;was good ■ law in New Zealand, as elsewhere, that a wife could not acquire, a domicile-dis-tinct from that of her husband; but this Act expressly gave hey one for purposes of divorce ; thereby endeavouring to remedy the scandal of. a wife having to follow her' husband from country to country in an effort to obtain a divorce. Merely to attack" this legislation on the grounds that it might not, obtain foreign recognition was irrelevant,,

Mr Wiren, for the respondent, submitted that there were two restrictions on the power of the New Zealand Parliament to legislate, viz :—(1) 'lts legislation must not be repugnant to t any ‘imperial legislation; and (2) it must be for the peace, order and good gov-.: eminent. • of the Dominion. ‘.5he:,1930 Act, he said was not repugnant-,:to, any Imperial statute, but neither was "it ■ -l;

for the peace, order and gpyerhment of New Zealand. The 'Act did not require that any matrimonial offence be committed in New Zealand, nor did -it require any residence part of the respondent ; however, sitory, in the Dominion. It extended, in fact, an open invitation to,all the women of the world to oome to New Zea - land to obtain a divorce, no matter where their husbands domiciled. No doubt the good, government of t-h"-Dominion was concerned, with the women deserted lier'e, but surely it ; had no concern: with. the > women .'coming-.' henafter being'deserted abroad. The, New Zealand •Parliament was riot .a. Sovereign 'Parliament - like the Imperial Pafliiment, but it r wasi subordinate 'ini that it war limited by its written constitution,' with the results'-'that'.'-its-- statutes were open to review by the courts.. ■ ■ The hearing was adjourned.