WIFE'S DIVORCE PETITION

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20985, 23 September 1931, Page 12

WIFE'S DIVORCE PETITION

VALIDITY OF LEGISLATION. DECREE TO BE GRANTED. APPEAL COURT DECISION. EFFECT OVERSEAS DISCUSSED. [nr TELEGRAPH. —PRESS ASSOCIATION*.] WELLINGTON, Tuesday. The question of the validity of the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Amendment Act ,of 1930 was argued extensively before both divisions of the Court of Appeal in tho suit of Florence.. Kate Worth, for a divorce from her husband, Charles Stanhope Worth, heard on July 7 and 8 last. Tho Court delivered its reserved decision to-day, each of the seven Judges who at the hearing hold ing that the legislation was intra vires lluy Parliament of New Zealand and valid, and that Mrs. Worth was entitled to a decree nisi. Tho petitioner took proceedings in the Supreme Court in May under the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Amendment Act, 1930, alleging an agreement for separation and-desertion. Her husband was domiciled in England, and had never been in New Z<saland. At the hearing a question arose regarding tho legislation and the case was removed to the Court of Appeal. I "Statute Perfectly Clear." The Chief J-istice, Sir Michael Myers, after discussing authorities quoted in argument and difficulties arising out of tho legislation, said: —"The answer to all this in the present case, however, is that the language of the statutory provision now before us is perfectly clear. There is no ambiguity about it. It is not capable of two conflicting constructions. It may be that a decree of divorce made under section 3 of the Act of 1930 is valid only in New Zealand, and is of no force or validity outside this country. "It may be that parties divorced in New Zealand may still be regarded as man and wife outside the Dominion. It may be that // a man against whom such a decree is made, if he marries again outside New Zealand, may be liable to be prosecuted for bigamy. It may be that a wife who obtains a decree may similarly be liable to prosecution if she goes outside New Zealand and remarries. Possibly also various difficulties in the way of legitimacy of children and of inheritance of property may arise, but with these aspects of the matter we are not concerned. Sole Question For Court. "We are entitled—indeed, bound—to assume that all matters of this kind were within the knowledge of and were considered by the Legislature, that Parliament considered/ notwithstanding these possible difficulties and doubts, that it was necessary or desirable in the interests of the peace,, order and good government of the Dominion to confer the rights that it conferred upon married women permanently resident in New Zealand, to whom the enactment applies. The sole question with which the Court is concerned is whether or not the enactment is intra vires the New Zealand Legislature. lam of opinion that the enactment is intra* vires the New Zealand Legislature, that its language is plain and unambiguous, and that effect must he given it accordingly. I am requested by Mr. Justice Blair to say he concurs with this judgment." The Chief Justice said Mr. Justice Herdman concluded a survey of the international effect and validity of the legislation by sayiijg: "It may be that in legislating as it has done, Parliament has paved the way for scandal, injustice, and suffering of innocent people, but no matter how strange and fantastic may be the legislation which Parliament enacts, our sole duty is, to interpret it. In my opinion the Court below had jurisdiction to entertain the petition." Divorce Not Valid In England. In his judgment, Mr. Justice Reed said: —"I agree that the Parliament of New Zealand may make such divorce laws as it thinks fit, irrespective of the effect on other nationals or the principles of private international law. A divorce granted in circumstances such as exist in tho present case, that is, the respondent. .never having been in New Zealand at ali, is valid only withitf the boundaries of the Dominion. If either petitioner or respondent marries again, relying on the validity of the divorce, she or he can in England be prosecuted for bigamy. Any children of either of such marriages will in that country b<s illegitimate. "It is only /right that persons contemplating divorce in the circumstances such as the present, with the intention ofmarry in" acain, should understand the position. Ilence these observations. I agree* that tho petitioner is entitled in law to a deciec nisi for divorce." Tho case was remitted back to the Supreme Court with a direction that a decree nisi be made.