THE DIVORCE LAW.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2123, 24 February 1908, Page 4

THE DIVORCE LAW.

CONJUGAL RIGHTS. PRACTICE IN THE SUPREME COURT. “I suppose those cases will soon come to an end if the King gives his assent to the Act which was passed last year,” said -Mr. Justice Button in the Wellington Divorce Court last week in dealing with a number of cases for restitution of conjugal rights. “Personally, I am rather sorry that tho Act lias been passed. It should have been amended, and I would have been more pleased if it had been altered to make the period of two years for non-compliance with the order. It appears to me that if the parties will not cohabit the very object of marriage is frustrated. I think it would have been best to have fixed the term of two years for the length of time that should elapse, so that it might be regarded as a ground for divorce.” Mr Wilford: They will have to wait for five years now if a husband clears out and leaves his wife and children. At a later stage Mr. Wilford said he would like to make an observation with respect to restitution of conjugal rights cases. In England, under rule 175 of the Divorce Court rules of 1865, it was provided that before tho Court could make an order for restitution of conjugal rights, a notice in writing must have been sent to the respondent. That rule of English law was not embodied in the New Zealand practice. Mr. Justice Cooper, in a case of Harrison v. Harrison, decided in 1900 in Wellington, said: “This rule lias not been embodied in our laws of practice, and I think in cases of conjugal rights a demand couched in conciliatory terms for the resunipwliore a suit is brought for restitution tion of cohabitation should be made, and that a decree ought not to be made unless siic-li a demand has, prior to the institution of the suit, been served and disobeyed, except where very special circumstances exist.” Mr Justice Cooper held that as the English rule did not apply here the Court had a discretion in each case to sec why a demand had not been made before a suit was instituted. Mr. AViljoril pointed out the difficulty that existed in the matter. When proceedings have been commenced the petitioner cannot, under the procedure, write a letter to the respondent. This must be done before the proceedings are started. In many cases of the kind when a man came to got restitution proceedings instituted, and asked for a petition to he served, it would be found that the wife had been in the city of Wellington for a month before he came. When asked by a lawyer if he had written and asked his wife to come back, the reply often was: “No, I have not.” If he had not, then his chance had disappeared and his suit was finished. His Honor: In some of the cases today I have taken into consideration tho fact that some of the petitioners have verbally Invited their wives to return.

Mr Wilford : Then will your Hon >r accept in future the evidence of a verbal request and not-a written one? His Honor: T have done so. As for the future, I think this will lie the last time I ..shall sit in this Divorce Court. I have a ease next Monday week, and I think that will conclude my business on the Bench. I jnly mention this because you refer to what I propose to do. Mr. Milford: Is your Honor’s decision in saying that you will accept a verbal statement instead of a written one under circumstances that warrant it, made after consultation with other Judges?

His Honor: No. I should simply regard each case according to the circumstances, the same as Mr. Justice Cooper in Harrison v. Harrison.