DIVORCE ISSUE

Dominion, Volume 33, Issue 68, 13 December 1939, Page 14

DIVORCE ISSUE

Voluntary Boarder In Mental Institute PETITION BY WIFE Two mouths ago Mr. Justice Blair heard an unusual divorce action and decided that as the question wa 6 of importance and the submissions ou behalf of petitioner were against a decision of Mr. Justice Callan in 193 b the case should be decided by at least

three judges. Submissions by counsel for petitioner were accordingly heard in Wellington yesterday by the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers), Mr. Justice Blair, and Mr. Justice Johuislon. Petitioner, the wife, bad applied for a divorce ou the ground that the respondent was a person of unsound mind and was unlikely to recover; that he had been continuously a person of unsound mind tor seven years preceding her petition and during the final three years, had been an inmate of a mental institute within the meaning of the Mental Defectives Act. The position, as disclosed in evidence, whs that respondent had been a voluntary patient in Porirua mental hospital since 1929, but was not certified till May last. Mr. 8. A. Wireu appeared for petitioner and the interests of the respondent were watched by Mr. J. Prendeville, representing the Solicitor-Gen-eral.

Mr. Wiren said this was a petition for divorce based upon section 10, subsection G, of the Matrimonial Causes Act. The section was as follows: — “That the respondent is a person of unsound mind and is unlikely to recover, and has been continuously a person of unsound mind for the period of seven years immediately preceding the filing 'of the petition, and during the final three years of the said period of seven years has been confined as such in New Zealand in an institution within the meaning of the ...ental Defectives Act, 1911, or in a like institution in any other country of the British Dominions.” The Chief Justice said that the question was: Isa voluntary boarder confined “as such” within the section of the Act? “Our difficulty, whatever our sympathy, is that this legislation deals with .the matter of status, and in order that a person may be entitled to a decree changing that status he or she must bring himself or herself in the very words of the ground prescribed in the Act,” the Chief Justice said. Mr. Justice Blair: I propose to find in petitioner’s favour that at all times from 1929 respondent’s mental condition was such as to satisfy the Statute. I think I indicated that at the hearing. 1 say he satisfied the divorce act, but I want to get on to the “as such” business.

One would think, said the Chief Justice, that there ought to be a statutory provision limiting the time that a person could remain a voluntary boarder. It. seemed ridiculous that a person should be in an institution for some years and remain a voluntary boarder. He did not think it could have been intended that a voluntary boardershould remain indefinitely. When Mr. Wiren had concluded his submissions, the Chief Justice told Mr. Prendeville that the Court ttlid not think it necessary to call on him. “IVe think it is preferable that we should give our views in writing,” he said. “If we find any difficulty in doing so we will call on you later. At present, however, we do not think it is necessary.”