THE KING’S PROCTOR

Hokitika Guardian, 25 March 1933, Page 6

THE KING’S PROCTOR

WIDE POWERS OF DEPARTMENT

LONDON, February 14

Victims of th e King’s Proctor's department continue to furnish extraordinary examples of the activities of this strange branch of the Government servic e that is charged with the 'unsavoury task of prying into privars lives (says the “Daily Express”). One e xample of the department’s lack of consideration is vouched for by a well-known barrister.

A Lancashire merchant took action for divorce against his wife, and was granted a decree. A few months later •he forgave the -woman and lived with i]ie r again.

iSoon afterwards a firm of solicitors telephoned the man and requested him to go to Manchester to see them. The merchant, who was unaware of the object of the proposed interview, retorted .that they should send someone to se.3 him.

A second telephone request was made for an interview, with the same result. The next thing that happened was that tiie King’s Proctor took action for the divorce decree to be rescinded. Counsel appeared for the merchant and argued that the King’s Proctor should not be awarded costs, -ars claimed. His contention was that the King's Proctor ishould have warned the merchant that he -must inform tne Court of his reunion with his wife, and apply for the decree to be rescinded. Th : « the husband could have done at trivial cost, •whereas the intervention of the King' s Proctor involved considerable

and unnecessary expense. A week’s adjournment was granted, and at the next hearing couneel for the King’s Proctor appeared with an affidavit that the petitioner had "obstructed their inquiries.” In the absence of a reply to their affidavit, costs were awarded against the merchant. “I have made inuniries,’’ shjd the barrister, “and find it is the usual practice of the department to abstain from giving a warning jn cases of this kind. ■Moreover, the department -always demands the costs, that could so easily have been avoided, of their intervention.” I