GRANTING OF DIVORCE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21899, 7 September 1934, Page 13

GRANTING OF DIVORCE

INJUSTICE ALLEGED • FORMER MENTAL PATIENT SYMPATHY OF MEMBERS [BY TELEGRAPH —SPECIAL REPORTER] WELLINGTON. Thursday The opinion that the petitioner was the victim of a grave miscarriage of justice was expressed by the A to L Public Petitions Committee of the Hoifte of Representatives when reporting to-day on the petition of Marjorie Emma Banks, of Auckland, praying for compensation for alleged unfair treatment during her detention in a mental hospital. The committee recommended that the petition be referred to the Government for most favourable consideration. Tho chairman of the committee, Mr. E. F. Healy (Government —Wairau), said that Mrs. Banks was committed to the Porirua Mental Hospital as a mental defective on June 5, 1923. From September 19, 1923, to February 27, 1925, she was absent on leave, and was with her husband during the whole of that period. Mrs. Banks was also absent on leave from September 19, 1929, to October 19, 1929, and again from July 4, 1930, to July 18, 1930. Husband's Petition Filed On June 30, 1930, a petition for divorce was filed at Wellington by her husband, Alfred John Banks, on the grounds that "petitioner's wife is a person of , unsound mind and is unlikely to recover, and has been continuously a person of unsound mind for a period of seven years and more immediately preceding the filing of this petition, namely, from June 5, 1923, and during the whole of the said period of seven years and more has been confined as such in the Porirua Mental Hospital." On August 5, 1930, a decree nisi in divorce was granted by the Supremo Court. At the hearing of the case, which was undefended, petitioner and a medical officer gave evidence on oath to the effect that during the whole of the period referred to in the petition Mrs. Banks was continuously confined in the mental hospital at Porirua. It was not brought to the notice of the Court that Mrs. Banks was, during such period, for a considerable time living at home with her husband. A decree absolute in divorce was granted on November 26, 1930, unopposed. Mrs. Banks wished to defend the case, but no steps'were taken on her behalf to bring certain essential facts before the Court. Within three weeks after the decree absolute was granted, the husband married again. Patient Now Recovered Mr. Healy also stated that Mrs. Banks was on leave from June 22, 1931, to June 1, 1932, and was discharged relieved on the latter day. Mrs. Banks had now recovered. Mr. F. W. Schramm (Labour —Auckland East) said that Mrs. Banks was served with the divorce petition while absent on leave at Day's Bay. When the case came, before the Supreme Court, no mention was made of the fact that the womaxi was for some time absent from the institution during the seven years prior to the filing of the petition. The Judge granted a decree nisi as he could act only on the evidence before the Court. Mr. Schramm said that in all cases where the grounds of divorce were on account of tho mental defectiveness of the respondent it was the duty of the Solicitor-General to take such steps as he thought fit on behalf of the mental defective. The Solicitor-General was duly appointed guardian ad litem and appointed to look after the. interests of the woman. His duties in such a case were higher than those of a mere trustee. They were those of a guardian trustee. In "this particular case it did not appear that all the necessary steps were taken or all the information was placed before the Court. Government Grant Urged It was a case in which the Government should make a grant. Mrs. Banks was relying upon a small order for alimony made against her husband, and she was separated from her children, whom she had not seen since the divorce was granted. On the facts, the Government should do justice to the woman. . The Prime Minister, Mr. Forbes: What injustice has the Government done ? Mr. Schramm: I do not accuse any member of the Government of having done any injustice, but I say that certain steps were not taken on her behalf that should have been taken by officers of the Crown. After many other members had supported the committee's finding, the report was tabled