"BARBAROUS LAW”

Greymouth Evening Star, 9 March 1922, Page 6

"BARBAROUS LAW”

MR. JELLICOE ON DIVORCE. The law under which a divorce may follow a separation made by mutual consent was criticised severely by Mr. E. G. Jeliicoe at the Wellington Supreme Court on Monday. His criticism, however, did not proceed far. for Mr. Justice Hosking stoppe 1 it by ruling that the Court could not question the law. The case was one in which Goutfried Wahren sought a. divorce from Emily Wahren. Air. I’. S. K. Alacassey, who appeared for petitioner, said the parties were burn in Switzerland, and 'were married in London in 1880. They came to New Zealand m 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. r “Aly client,” said Air. Jeliicoe, “now a worn woman, married at the age of 17 years, and having borne to thi' petitioner eicht children, to-day finds herself in the divorce court an innocent victim of a cruel, barbarous law made by a self-righteous generation.” . His Honour : “I don’t think 1 can_ accept that, Air. Jeliicoe. We can . 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, th (; Court could disallow the pet ition. Mr. Jeliicoe: “AVithout having committed any wrong, she, by reason ot this law, is compelled to submit in this case to a dissolution of .her mai

His Honour: “I cannot allow that to pass unchallenged, Decause, if she is not to blame, the Court may retuse to grant a decree .... Of course, in these matters, under a deed ot 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 tys client of the position of the law ihe respondent, having committed no wrong, was there to gratify ihe 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 ho did not intend to oppose the application, his Honour made a decree, an agreement in regard to payment of alimony and other matters being approved by consent.