THE BIGAMY LAW IN N.Z.

Taihape Daily Times, 12 July 1919, Page 3

THE BIGAMY LAW IN N.Z.

CHIEF JUSTICE ’S INTERPRETATION QUES‘TIONED_ . ‘ WELLINGTON, Jilly 10_ The Full Court heart the case -of Rex v. Jackson, which involves the present position of the bigamy law in New Zea_ Land. The Chief Justice decided that the whole law was bad, and the question now before -the Appeal Court is Whether the whole is bad, or 0111), that part dealing with bigamy outside. of New Zealand. The Solicitor-General and Mr Macausey appeared for the Crown, and sir John Findlay, 1Q.C.,~. ‘and Mr Jackson for the accused. . - The Solicitor-General argued that there can be no question as to sever. ability in the case of the Imperial Statute, yet the Statute of the subordinate legislature section of the Act might be divisable, provided both in form -and -substance the section was capable of severability.

Sir John Findlay submitted that in Landei-’s case the Court of Appeal dccided the wohle of section 224 was invalid. That was a proper deduction from the decision. The Australian cases showing wherein the Statute was good and bad were wrapped up together, and the whole must fall. Inthe present case the words, “In any part of the world” could not be divided so as to make the section apply to New Zcaland while extra territorial jurisdiction is excluded. The section does not consist of aiwo :<r‘p'l":l‘:o ;r‘»nrts. s‘r\ ’rlm+one part might -be declared good and another part bad. The Solicitor-Gem eral was asking that the section be de,clared valid as far as it will go, but. "that is what. the Courts in Australia have declined to do. If —tll‘e section

read, “In New Zealand or elsewhere,” he «a.dmitted probably the words, “or elsewhere” might .be declaredibad and the rest remain good; but therehvere no such separate parts. To hold that the section may now be read as applying to New Zealand_alone would ‘be legisLating, ' not inzferpreting, the law. Judgment was reserved. ........._.__..__....