THE DIVORCE LAW.

Taranaki Daily News, 27 June 1921, Page 4

THE DIVORCE LAW.

MUTUAL SEPARATION. NEW CLAUSE INTERPRETED. ( AN IMPORTANT RULING. By Telegraph.—Press AssoJnilon. Wellington, June 25. A ruling given by Sir John Salmond at the Supreme Court this morning in the divorce suit, Wm. George Lodder v. Ctwilia Ruthei-ford 1 .odder, is of great interest and importance, since it is the first decision as to the meaning of section 4 of the recently-amended legislation dealing with grounds for divorce. The section provides that a Judge may, within the exercise of his discretion, grant a dissolution of marriage in cases where the parties have lived apart under a deed of separation for a term of three years or upwards. In the course of a lengthy judgment His Honor said that in general it was not in the interests of parties, or of the public that a man and his wife should remain bound together as husband and wife in law when for a lengthy period they had ceased to be so in fact, but the Legislature recognised that that general principle was subject to exceptions and qualifications on account of the special circumstances of each case. The only resource had been to leave the matter to the discretion of the Court and in exercising its discretionary power the Court had to consider whether there was any special- circumstance which would render the granting of a decree inconsistent with the public interest. Otherwise, were the fact that a man and wife had lived apart for three years made the ground for divorce as of a right the legislation would tend to produce and aggravate the very evils it was intended to cure. The harmony of married life was largely due to the fact that marriage was a permanent tie, which could be dissolved only for grave cause and only at the cost of public discredit *ll to one at least of the parties. All divorce possessed the possibility of public mischief, inasmuch as it tended to lessen, the sense of responsibility with which men and women entered into marriage and it was for the Court, in its discretionary authority, to weigh that private benefit against the possibility of pnblio mischief, and to grant or refuse a dissolution accordingly. His Honor elaborated his points, setting out his interpretation of the clause, but made no ordCr either for or against a decree in this particular case, as he. adjourned the matter for an agreement between the parties as to maintenance.