"BARBAROUS LAW"

Evening Post, Volume CIII, Issue 53, 4 March 1922, Page 6

"BARBAROUS LAW"

MR. JELLICOE ON DIVORCE

NOT RELEVANT, SAYS THE COURT.

The law under which a divorce may. follow a separation made .by mutual consent was criticised severely by Mr,., E. G. Jellicoe at the Supreme Court today. His .criticism, however, did not proceed far, for Mr. Justice Hosking stopped it by ruling that the Court could not question the law.

The case was one in which Godtfried Wahren sought a divorce from Emily Wahren. Mr. P. S. K. Macassey, who appeared for petitioner,! said the parties were born in Switzerland, and were' married in London in 1880. They came to New Zealand in 1884, since when they had lived in Wellington. There were eight children of the marriage, six of whom, all of age, were still living. In 1915, the parties disagreed, Wahren left home, and an agreement of separation was signed. Evidence on these lines was given.

"My client," said Mr. Jellicoer "now a worn woman, married at the age of 17 years, and having borne to the petitioner eight children,,to-day finds herself in the Divorce Coutb an innocent victim of a cruel, barbarous law made by a self-righteous generation." His Honour : "I don't think I can accept that, Mr. Jellicoe. We, can't question the law here. If the respondent wishes to oppose she may do so; then the Court may go into the question of which of the spouses is to blame." If the petitioner were to blame, N the Court could disallow the petition. Mr. Jellicoe: "Without having committed any wrong, she, by reason of this law, is-compelled to'submit in this caseto a dissolution of her marriage." His Honour : "I cannot allow that to pass, unchallenged, because, if she is not to blame, the Court may refuse to grant a decree. .... Of course, 'in these matters, under a deed of separation made six years' ago. to find out who was to blame would probably be a very difficult matter." .

Mr. Jellicoe said he had advised his client of the position of the law. The, respondent, haying committed no wroncf, was there to stratify the desire of the person who had applied for the divorce —to gratify the desire of the person who, 42 years ago, had sworn to love and cherish her.

His Honour said he could not allow this to proceed. Unless Mr. 'Jellicoe intended to oppose the divorce he would make a decree. \

Mr. Jellicoe intimating that he did not intend to oppose the application, his Honour made a decree, an . aspree-. ment in regard to payment of alimony, and other matters being approved by consent.