TEE COMPLICATIONS OF MARRIAGE LAWS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 10133, 16 May 1896, Page 1 (Supplement)

TEE COMPLICATIONS OF MARRIAGE LAWS.

ENGLAND AND THE COLONIES.

[from our own correspondent.] London, April 3. Do any of your readers recollect the wedding of Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Charles Wells Dunster, which took place in New Zealand two years ago ? I cannot aid their memory by stating in what part of New Zealand the marriage took place, because I do not know and have no means of ascertaining. What I do know is that some very curious results have arisen from that wedding, and as it is not impossible that the experience may be repeated, it may be worth while to explain what happened. It seems that Mr. Diiiißtar had been domiciled in New South Wales, and that he bad obtained a divorce from his first wife by due course of legal proceedings in tho law courts in that colony. The ground of divorce consisted in desertion on the par t of his wife, which, according bo tho case recently set forth in the -English court, constitutes a ground of divorce in New South Wales. Mr. Dunster then came to New Zealand, and, in the full belief that the New South Wales decree was valid, became engaged to his cousin, and married her in New Zealand. The happy pair then appear to have come to England, and now his first wife is proceeding against her erstwhile husband for a divorce on tho ground of his desertion and alleged bigamy. Her counsel contends that the first marriage took place in England, and has not since been dissolved on any ground recognised as- yet by the English law. On the other side ib is contended that) both parties were domiciled in New South Wales, and that their marriage was duly dissolved in accordance with the law of that colony as interpreted by competent courts of jurisdiction. Consequently Mrs. Dunster No. Ino longer holds any conjugal relations towards a former husband, whom also she is alleged to have desortod for several years j and further it is maintained that when the second marriage was contracted in New Zealand, the bridegroom, by virtue of his New South Wales divorce, was absolutely a free man. Tho case seems to have completely puzzled Sir Francis Jeune and his court, who found themselves face to face with a complication and contradiction of marriage laws, that there really seemed no immediately available means of disentangling, and ultimately it was decided to adjourn the case sine dit, in order that the counsel might confer further with their clients as to the course best to be adopted in view of the peculiar circumstances. Both sides, were, represented by counsel famous in such cases— Mr. Bayford,Q.C, on one side, and Mr. Inderwick, Q.C., on the other. Mr. Inderwick's opinion seems to be that, so far as this particular case is concerned, it would bo just as well for Mr. Dunster to let judgment go against him and have the decree of divorce made absolute, for then, as counsel remarked, amid laughter, "One or other of the two decrees surely must hold good." But, at the same time,"it must be remembered, that this case would place Mrs. Dunster No.» in a somewhat equivocal position, so that it seems scarcely likely that ib will be assented to by the respondent and his wife. : Manifestly the moral to be deduced from this curious case is the somewhat trite one that extreme inconvenience and even worse consequences are involved in the present diversity of the marriage laws in force in various parts of the British dominions.,. The facb that marriage with a sister-in-law; is not yet recognised in the mother country, while it is legal in most of the colonies, and that marriages of divorced persons, J whose former marriages were dissolved on grounds not admitted as. valid, in England, are likewise deemed void, ' may in time bring about a plentiful crop of litigation and misfortune. Surely this.is a r Imperial federation to which the' earliest attention ought to be earnestly devoted. . ■' '