SECTION 4

Evening Post, Volume CI, Issue 150, 25 June 1921, Page 6

SECTION 4

THE AMENDED DIVORCE LEGISLATION

THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT

A ruling- given by his Honour Sir John Salmond at the Supreme Court this morning in the divorce suit, William CTeorgeLodder v. Cecilia Rutherford Lodder, is of great interest and importance, since it is the first decision as to ■ the meaning of Section i of the recently ■amended legislation dealing with the grounds of divorce. The section provides that a Judge may, within the-ex-ercise of his discretion, grant a dissolution of marriage in cases where the parties have lived apart under a deed .of' separation for a term of three years or upwards. In the course of a lengthy judgment, his Honour said, that in genera] ;it was. not in the interests of the parties ot of the public that a man and .wife should remain bound together as husband and wife in law wh-on for a lengthy period they had ceased to be so in fact, but the Legislature recognised that that general principle was subject to exemptions and qualifications, and on account of the/ special circumstances of each case the only resource had been to leave t the matter to the discretion of the Court. s In exercising its discretionary power, the Court.had to consider whether there was any special circumstance which would render the granting of a decree inconsistent with the public .interest, otheriwise, were the fact that a man and wifa had lived apart for three- years made a ground for divorce as of right, the legislation would tend to produce and aggravate the very evils which it was intended to cure. The harmony of married life was largely duo to the fact that marriage was a permanent tie which could be dissolved only for grave cause, arid only at the c*st of public discredit to one at least of tlie parties. All divorce posstssed a possibility'of public mischief, inasmuch at id-tended to lessen the-sense of responsibility with' which men and' women entered into marriage, and it was for the Court in its discretionary author-, ity to weigh that private benefit against the possibility of public mischief, 'aid to grant or refuse a dissolution accordingly. '.'■ His Honow elaborated his points, setting out bis interpretation of the clause, but made no order either,for or against a decree in the particular case, as he adjourned the matter for agreement between the parties as to maintenance. Mr. A. W. Blair appeared for the petitioner, and Mt. T. Neave for th& respondent.