MARRIAGE OF GIRL

Grey River Argus, 5 September 1939, Page 4

MARRIAGE OF GIRL

UNDER SIXTEEN. AUCKLAND, September 2. The first case of its kind under New Zealand law, and one apparently without precedent also in English law, was brought in the Supreme Court when a husband sought nullity of his marriage on the ground that the girl with whom he went through a form of marriage _ was under the age of sixteen at the time. ■ A section of the Marriage Amendment Act, 1933, under which the petition was brought, reads: “Marriage between persons either of whom is under the age of sixteen years shad be void.”

“I am sorry to see that the law is altered in that way,” said Mr. Justice Ostler, who presided, “but that is what it means, and it seems there cannot be any question about it.” The petitioner was Norman Geoffrey Guide ; (Mr. Hodgson), who asked for annul|ment of marriage with Pearl Vowles. Mr. Hodgson said Guide, who was a jeweller, now living in Greymouth, went through a form of marriage with the respondent on April 24, 1936, in a church at Te Puke. Her age was then given at sixteen, and they lived together until in April, 1937, they separated. The petitioner said lie had endeavoured to get his wife back, but she would not come. They had no children and in November last she obtained' maintenance and separation orders against him. On ' making inquiries he learned that she was born at Hawera on December 9, 1920, and was therefore fifteen years and nearly five months old at the time of the marriage ceremony. He had no idea she was under sixteen. | Mr. Hodgson said the Marriage Amendment Act, 1933, on which he relied, followed the English Act of ‘ 1929. I I His Honour said that a strong word /‘void” was used, and he would like to know how the thing was done in England. . Mr. Hodgson said he had 'been unable to find any English decisions of the point involved since the passage ‘of the Marriage Act in 1929. "'The I petitioner had put in an appeal against the maintenance order, but this was not proceeded with, when he learned of the respondent’s age. j “I suppose void means void, but it [is a very strong thing that the law should be altered like that,” said his' I Honour. He added that he had known j a number of cases in which a man had' been charged with carnal knowledge of a girl under the age of sixteen, and I the Court had often thought the best solution was for them to marry.. This law meant that such marriages would not be legal. Mr. Hodgson said that marriage would not be a refuge in cases, unless the man was not prosecuted until after the girl had attained the - age of sixteen. In this case the girl’s ■ mother knew quite well what her age was.

His Honour said he could make a decree absolute or decree nisi. He preferred in this case to make a decree nisi, to be moved absolute at the

end of three months, and he. would instruct the registrar to communicate the facts to the Solicitor-Gen-eral. If the Crown thought there was anything to be said against this view of the law; it would have the opportunity of saying it.