DIVORCE IN NEW ZEALAND.

Auckland Star, Volume XLI, Issue 162, 11 July 1910, Page 3

DIVORCE IN NEW ZEALAND.

■ ' ."-" —- —• ■ MR. . JUSTICE" DENNISTON GIVES . HIS .VIEWS. ->-■ , SEX-EQUALITY FAVOURED. (From Our Special Correspondent.) , . ... LONDON, June 3. . . Mr. Justice Denniston, who is on a visit to England, appeared aS a witness this week before the.Royal Commission oh Divorce; and gave his views regarding, the divorce system in New Zealand. His Honor said that in New Zealand misconduct alone on. the part of a hus-. band was. now a ground for divorce at the suit of the.wife. Wilful and continuous desertion by husband or wife for a period of five years without'just cause was a-ground for divorce at the suit of the deserted party. The fact that a husband had during four years and upwards been. an habitual" drunkard, and had either habitually left bis wife without! means-of'support or had habitually been guilty of cruelty towards her, and the fact that a wife had for a like period beeni an habitual drunkard and had habitually neglected her domestic duties and rendered herself unfit to discharge them, wa3 a ground for divorce of the husband or wife of the offending party. The conviction and sentence to imprisonment or penal servitude for seven years or upwards for attempting to .take the life of husband or wife "was a ground for divorce at the suit of such -husband or wife. By an amending Act passed in 1907, there were added these grounds: —- "That the respondent had been convicted of the murder of a child of the petitioner or respondent; that the respondent was a lunatic or person of unsound mind, and had been confined as such in any asylum for a period or periods not less in aggregate. than ten years within twelve immediately preceding the filing of tfiV petition,, and was unlikely to recover from such lunacy or unsoundness of mind. 5 * With regard to the placing of husband and wife on an equality as to the legal consequences of infidelity, be thought it rested with those who advocated discrimination between the rights of" the respective parties to the contract to show that such discrimination was required in the public interest. The alteration would undoubtedly, to some extent, encourage and facilitate collusive divorces. If misconduct were all that need be proved, the lenient view taken by many of this matrimonial offence might offer inducement to abstention from defence and to collusive furnishing of evidence, or apparent evidence, of the offence. He had had cases of this class. The difficulty could be, to some extent, met by careful, scrutiny of the evidence. He did not think the mere risk of collusion was sufficient'to justify depriving the wife of the right. The greater number of applications for divorce which had come before him had been on the ground of desertion. All cases under* the head of habitual drunkenness which had come before him in which relief had been granted had disclosed great unhappiness and hardship. The conditions oi a family, one of the beads of which was an habitual drunkard was so painful and so demoralising to children as to justify the extreme relief. In cases where the husband,was the petitioner ■he was generally ordered to make some provision for the wife. He had had no case under the ground of conviction and imprisonment for" seven years for attempting to take the life of husband of wife. In regard to the publication of reports of divorce cases, the Court might, on the application of the petitioner or respondent, or at its discretion in the interests of public morals, make an order that the publication of any report should be dealt with as contempt of Court. In reply to Lord Guthrie, the witness said divorce jurisdiction was confined to judges of the Supreme: Court. They were six in number, arid sat in different districts, meeting at intervals to sit as a court of appeal. Juries were sworn when damages were claimed in divorce suits, and the parties were always represented by counsel. .