DIVORCE MADE EASY.

Taranaki Daily News, 23 August 1921, Page 8

DIVORCE MADE EASY.

MR. JUSTICE HERDMAN CALLS A HALT. SOME NOTABLE COMMENTS. Christchurch, August 12. Mr. Justice Herdman, in two judgments in the Supreme Court, in divorce, dealt with clause 4 of the. Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act of last year, which makes divorce much easier t han was before. In each case heard by His Honor a. separation and maintenance order had been made by a magistrate against the husband, and in each case the husband had petitioned for divorce on the ground of separation ■for at least three years, under the order. His Honor dismissed both the petitions. One of the petitions was by Arthur Reginald Suter Holloway, who is in orders as a clergyman of the Anglican Church, but is not actively engaged in church work, being an agricultural instructor under the Canterbury Education Board at Timaru. In this ease Air. Justice Herdman said: “I have come to the conclusion that I should exercise by discretion against the petitioner iii the present proceedings. He bases his claim to have his marriage dissolved upon a separation order made against him by a magistrate at the instance of his wife on April 10, 1915. The grounds upon which the separation order was made were that he had been guilty of persistent cruelly to his wife and children, and, in particular, that he had assaulted her and habitually used insulting and vile language io her, and had kicked and injured his (laughter, who was fen years of age. and failed to provide his wife with adequate maintenance. The petitioner now says that these Allegations were untrue and that ho allowed the order io pass without opposition. Whatever the petitioner did or did not. in fact, do at the. time the magistrate made the order docs not seem to mo io matter now. The magistrate hoard the complaint and must have acted upon some proof when he made the order. Ho must have considered any consent to an order filed by the petitioner, and ho must have decided that some, if not all. of the. allegations made by the wife, had been! proved or admitted. If the petitioner filed a consentand it appears ho did—then h/ consent, if it had any legal effect at all, amounted to an admission nf the charges made against him. Without any hesitation I decide that in such a ease relief should not be granted, neither upon the ground of public intpro-t nor upon the ground

that the dissolution of the marrfage may he of advantage io cither the.petitioner or the respondent, or both, should the court interfere. The respondent does not want the marriage dissolved, and the petitioner is certainly not entitled to receive any favor at the hands of the court. If T grant a decree in this case then it seems to me that I lay down the principle that a husband, having grown tired of his wife, and wishing to have the marriage dissolved, may ill-treat her until in despair she is ’ forced to leave hiyi and apply to a magistrate for a separation order, thus jenabling h’er husband, if an order is j ( made against him and remains in force > for three years, to petition successfully | to have his marriage dissolved. It is I. no doubt true that the marriage be- | tween the parties has in fact, come j to an end. but if the termination of | matrimonial relations has been brought 1 about, not by the party who resists the proceedings, but by the deliberate and unjustifiable misconduct of the party who seeks the court’s favor, the court • should, in my opinion, declare that, it .will refuse the relief sought for the reason that the petitioner’s misconduct has disentitled hiiu to any consideration., ..