THE DIVORCE LAWS

Evening Post, Volume CI, Issue 50, 28 February 1921, Page 3

THE DIVORCE LAWS

SUBJECT OP COMMENT BY A JUDGE.

(BI TELEGRAPH.—PRCSI ASSOCMTISX.)

AUCKLAND, 26th February. ■ The fact that a • divorce petitioner need only prove' that, by mutual consent, a husband and wife have parted and have been apart for three years is a sufficient ground in the discretion of the Court for a divorce, was the subject of comment by his .Honour Mr. Justice Stringer at the Supreme Court to-day. . Mr. Dickson drew his Honour's attention to two cases about to be heard, in which separation by mutual consent was the ground of the petition, and said that as the proceedings were under the amending Act of 1920, and as there was likely to be a considerable number of cases, members of the Bar would be glad to have a ruling as to what evidence would be considered necessary. His Honour said he proposed following the course adopted by Mr. Justice Sim, who was an authority upon divorce law, namely, to grant decrees nisi, but to provide that a decree absolute must be moved, so that any party who desired to oppose it would have the opportunity of so doing.

"This Divorce Act Amendment," said his Honour at a later stage, "certainly seems to have made the obtaining of divorce an extremely simple matter now. Apparently, all people have to do is to agree to live separate, and part for three years. Then, apparently, they can get divorced." \ Mr. Singer: "There is discretion, it seems to me."

His Honour: "Yes, there is discretion. I suppose moralists would disagree as to whethef-'brnot this was legislation which was in the interests of the community, but' Judges, have only to administer the law as they find it."