"CRUELTY" TO WIFE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 126, 30 May 1934, Page 15

"CRUELTY" TO WIFE.

WHAT THE LAW ALLOWS.

(From Our Own Correspondent.) SYDNEY, May 25. Our Divorce Court has had under its consideration during the past week the suit of Annie Colless, who sought a dissolution of marriage on the ground that her husband, during one year prior to the date of the petition, had "repeatedly assaulted and cruelly beaten her." The husband denied the allegations, though he admitted, incidentally, that he had "smacked her face," and his lawyer went to great trouble to show that the treatment which Mrs. Colless had received did not constitute tho degree of "cruelty" required to secure a divorce.

Mrs. Colless alleged that, on various occasions, her husband had bumped her against a. wall, tin-own her over a chair, and punched her on the jaw. Counsel for the husband quoted cases to show that the throwing of a bowl at a wife does not constitute "cruelty" in the legal sense, and generally speaking that blows which do not inflict injury or harm cannot be described as "cruel beatings." But Mr. Justice Bovce was more concerned about another aspect of the case—the duration of these allegedly cruel assaults. After a careful consideration and comparison of dates, his Honor came to the conclusion that what had been proved against Mr. Colless was not enough to justify the legal release of his wife. Not Sufficient For Divorce. "What I have to decide," said Mr. Justice Bovce, "is whether, during the 12 months immediately preceding the petition, the husband had repeatedly assaulted and cruelly beaten the petitioner. I find that, for 8i months there is no evidence on which I can rely as to that." In fact, Mrs. Colless at best had only proved assaults and cruel beatings "during one period of the "year." and though this might justify an order for a judicial separation, it would not avail for a divorce. It may be admitted that there is some force in the argument put forward on behalf of Mr. Colless— that "a mail might treat his wife cruelly for two or three months and yet be very kind to her for the rest of the year," and that "if a woman were given a divorce for isolated acts of cruelty, a dangerous precedent would be established"—possibly enabling a wife in love with another man to use a trivial pretext to secure a divorce.

Tlie conclusion of the whole matter ■was that his Honor, after reserving judgment, decided that he could not grant a divorce because there was no proof that the alleged cruelty had continued for the specified period of twelve months. No doubt the decision is perfectly "correct"—for Mr. Justice Boyce is an able lawyer and an experienced Divorce Court Judge. But it can hardly have satisfied Mrs. Colless, who may regret that she did not put up with her husband's pleasantries a little longer, and it must have left a great many other women wondering how far and how long they.may, be fprced to endure brutal, treatment—which in duration or degree stops just short of the legal definition of "cruelty"—-before the law will come to their rescue.