EARTH TRIUMPHANT.

Auckland Star, Volume XL, Issue 271, 13 November 1909, Page 13

EARTH TRIUMPHANT.

Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." Probably a generous 99 per cent of humanity were in ignorance of the fact that on Wednesday and Thursday, September 29 and they had any special reason to go about in fear and trembling, except, perhaps, on account of the materialising quarter-day obligations. Yet. according to Mr Frank Peirett, an American volcanologist, the sun, moon and stars were, so to speak, in league on those days to do serious damage to the earth. He assured us that the 29th was a date very favourable for earthquakes or eruptions, because on that day the sun, earth, and moon would be

in lure with each other, and the moon at its nearest approach to the earth. This combination, it seems, occurs quite frequently, and tends to produce "a gravitational distortion of the earth from a sphere to an ellipse." This distortion causes a big strain on the earth's crust, and any thin spot is likely to give way and thus produce all sorts of seismic disturbances. On September 29, 1909, however, the earth was threatened, according to M. Peirett, with a greater trial oi crust strength than usual, by reason of the fact that the planet liars was also very near the earth, and almost directly in a line with the earth, sun, and moon, whilst Saturn was not far from, the same line. Moreover, Jupiter, though far away on the other side of the sun, was also in line. Mr Peirett explained that though the effect of these planets is very small compared to that of the sun and* moon, their force, added to the other, meant a greater strain than usual on the earth's crust, and added materially to the risk of serious fractures. For that reason he wrote down September 29 and 30 as "very dangerous" days. Happily, Mother Earth was equal to resisting the powers of the celestial concert, and as far as we know the united pull of sun, moon, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn has not produced any visible damage even at the known weak spots in her crust. Mr Peirett himself allowed that it might so happen that nothing very special would occur, but this, he naively added, "will simply mean that the earth resisted; the danger will, nevertheless, have existed." ?S "WHEN DOCTORS DIFFER. ,, ) f Judges and juries all the -woria over have often great difficulty in deciding actions that involve questions for experts, and especially is this the case when medical men are called a-s witnesses for parties that are opposed to each other. In some cases the conflict of medical evidence is of such a character that it is quite impossible for judge or jury to believe that the doctors called are making any effort to do anything save substantiate the claims of the parties who have called them as witnesses. In recent cases under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the contradictory evidence given by medical men has given rise to very pointed judicial comment. One Judge, indeed, went so far as to declare that it hart teen "most painful" to him to- listen to the medical evidence given. A suggestion ha r i now been made Tjy Judge Edge, of London, which is designed to put an end to this state of things. He proposes that in the County of London a rota should be composed of gentlemen in whom the medical profession has confidence. The members of , the rota would act as official referees, so that medical men who are engaged in cases coming before the courts should, instead of placing their views- Ibefore the judge and jury, select a member from the rota by agreement, if possible. Should this not be poisibb, the judge would select the member of rota, who would examine the patient in the presence of the medical men engaged on both sides. The.-referee's report would be presented to the Court, and the evidence of the examiner taken as conclusive. This expedient would save the necessity'of calling medical men on the trial of actions, and thn expenses saved would in all probability be sufficient to pay, at any rate in part, for the feea of the official referee. Judge Edge's scheme seemed to' meet with the general approval of the legal profession, and, if adopted, will certainly sweeten the labours -of Judges who have to deal with compensationcases. It is a pity it cannot be applied to all cases where expert evidence i» necessary. " THE B.ICH MAN'S X.UXVBT.* j Divorce In England is to all intent! and purposes a luxury for the rich, and many estimable people raise their hands in (horror at the ibare idea of giving to the poor any farther facilities for escaping the matrimonial noose than those provided by a separation order. To jhear some people talk, one would imagine that infidelity in the homes of the poor was not really a grievaxee, that it is such a common thing among them "that -they look upon it as a mem incident to be condoned with, a fo» awear words, or expiated .with a blade eye. But the homes of the working classes are juet ac (hopelessly WTeckwt by Infidelity as those of the well-to-do; and the standard of morality Is certainty not ibelow that of their social superior*, ■ For one tiling many of the coaditiojuj ■that lead up to adultery are wantiiM among the -working elaeeee. XfuehwudS and wives are ranch more dependent Oα oaoh other in .the ihumhter xjmks of box clety. They do sot Jead the differeKS lives that many ihusbaada and wtwe-. do an "tlio mppex circles', nor ihavo Sibtf workers the idle hours fet their oomf . maud which many of their iJOcsJledl "betfcere" co often spend in seeking pfcsfib sure, and -thus paving X&4 W*3J ttf tiuj"' Divorce Court. ■ Tho social evils caused T*"ff tjJM poorer classes through .their teaMaro to obtain a divorce has been aggT&vateor ■by the passing of the Married Woman , * Act, 1895. Nothing can ibe nvorao far, the morality of the community tihaqj" tie existence in our midst of .thousand** of young husbands and wives compelled to indefinite celibacy iby tha exigencies" of a permanent separation order. At present the only place in England at which a divorce action can ibe 'tried is the Royal' Courts of Justice, Lorn don, and .the expenses of bringing an action in that court are such, that it may 'be eaid that the door of the court ie barred to the poor plaintiff. Now, however, the members of the Law Society have espoused the cauea of the poor, and have requested their CouncE to take steps to obtain such facilities for the trial of divorce cases as will bring the remedy of divorce within the reach of all. The suggestion most favoured is that a limited jurisdiction in divorce should be conferred on the County Courts. To the lay mind there seems to be no valid objection to this. The legislature has already entrusted a couple of lay justices, who have had no previous experience of administering justice, with -power to grant permanent separations between husbands and wives, so it is hard to see why Parliament should hesitate to entrust jurisdiction in divorce to the trained lawyers who sit upon the Couaty Court Bench. The chief objection urged against thia i proposal is that it would open the door ;to collusion. But the conditions which I lead up to cases of "arranged"' adultery I with a view to mutual release do noc ! exist to any greater extent among the 1 workers than among the drones of society, and it is manifestly unfair to oppose the proposition because its acceptance may ental a little more work for that meddjesoms though necessary offices the King's Proctor.