“ABOMINABLE” TO CONDEMN MAN TO LONELY LIFE

Press, Volume XCV, Issue 28234, 23 March 1957, Page 2

“ABOMINABLE” TO CONDEMN MAN TO LONELY LIFE

The view that it was an abominable thing to condemn a man to loneliness for the, rest of his life was expressed by Mr Justice Adams in the Supreme Court yesterday when the hearing of a divorce petition by a man, on the ground of living apart for more than seven years, was continued.

The petition of Arthur Edward Towns (Mr J. B. Weir) was defended by Mona Towns (Mr W. F. Brown). Respondent alleged that the living apart was due to wrongful acts, including desertion, of the petitioner: “I have been thinking about this case,’’ said his Honour. “Is it a matter of means, Mr Brown?" Mr Brown: There are a number of matters. My instructions are she proposes to defend the petition. “What is the motive?’’ asked his Honour. “She does not agree with divorce on religious grounds,’’ replied Mr Brown. His Honour:' I can understand that. That would be relevant if she were proceeding with the divorce. All she needs to do is to stand aside.

“She considers she would still be a divorced woman.’’ said Mr Brown. “She feels that as they have spent most of their life together, she now faces old age alone.’’ Security Offered His Honour said Mrs Towns had her family of daughters. Towns was completely alienated from his family and was in a position of complete loneliness. There was a human aspect. Mr Weir: My client would provide security if needed. “I don’t feel bound to justify my client’s decision to oppose,’’ remarked Mr Brown. “I am not putting pressure on you,’’ said his Honour. “I recognise the right of a person to the letter of the law but it must be remembered that Shylock was not an admirable character.’’ The policy of the courts and the legislature, and the general view of the legislature, was that where a marriage was dead and finished it was in the public interest and the interests of public morality that it should be moved to an end. ' “Those who have a religious scruple may well consider that when it comes to a mere matter of resistance.” said his Honour.

“My client is not taking the attitude of the character in ‘The Merchant of Venice’,” replied Mr Brown.

On the monetary side, his Honour said, his sympathies were with Mrs Towns. Mr Brown said that if Towns married again he would have to support two wives. “Here we are dealing with people coming into their later years.” continued his Honour. “Neither is likely to marry again. In these circumstances. I feel there is a different aspect.” Mrs Towns felt, in her conscience, she was acting rightly, said Mr Brown. His Honour said he thought it

would be wise to retire for a while to see whether the financial side of the case could be considered by the parties. Perhaps it could be seen if Mrs Towns could adopt a course requiring no initiative. “Before I retire I would like to say that in my view, as it seems matters of finance can be dealt with, it is—although the word may be too strong—an abominable thing to condemn a man, who has already lived a lonely life for more than seven years, to loneliness for the rest of his life,” said his Honour. “I feel very strongly indeed on that point. “My remarks should not be taken as suggesting any point of view in the matter of defence. Some way might be found so that this man may be given a chance to escape from the position he has been in in the last seven years.” On the Court resuming, Mr Brown announced: “I have discussed this matter raised by your Honour with my client, and she has instructed me that she desires to proceed with her defence.” Two daughters of the marriage and their husbands gave evidence for the respondent. Mr Brown had begun his submissions and legal argument when the adjournment was taken till next week.