“IT IS A FARCE”

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 21950, 19 February 1946, Page 4

“IT IS A FARCE”

CHIEF JUSTICE’S VIEW

DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS i P.A.) CHRISTCHURCH, Feb. 18. Christopher Adolphus Chester Paisley (Mr. D. W. Russell) petitioned the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, for a divorce in the Supreme Court to-day from Waverley Mary Paisley (Mr. B. B. E. Taylor), on the grounds of failure to comply with an order for the restitution of conjugal rights. The Chief Justice described the situation in respect of such proceedings as farcical. "When you petitioned for your order,” asked His Honour of the petitioner, “did the judge ask you if you sincerely wanted your wife to return?” Paisley: Yes. His Honour: And you would still like her to return? Paisley: Yes, T would. His Honour: Yet I observe that your wife was ordered to return within 14 dava of service of the order. Those 14

days expired on December 12 and you commenced these proceedings for divorce on December 14, two days later. It is a farce.

Paisley: She had not returned. Air. Russell: And that is the law, Your Honour.

His Honour: I am. .aware of the law. It is a farce, and though the farce is authorised by statute I am entitled to point out; in case it has escaped the notice of those who frame the statutes, that it is nothing more or less than a farce. This sort of petition makes one feel that there is not the anxiety for the return of the partner that is sworn to when the order for restitution of conjugal rights is sought. As His Honour was granting a decree nisi, to be made absolute after three months, Mr. Russell intimated that he was seeking no order as to the custody of the child of the marriage at present. His Honour: That is rather a pity. Had the petitioner asked for custody of the child I might have thought there were some bona fides in him. Mr. Russell said that the question of custody would be raised when the decree absolute was sought.