DIVORCE DECREES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVI, Issue 23487, 26 October 1939, Page 13

DIVORCE DECREES

THE SEEVING OF PAPEES r ■, ADVICE TO LEGAL PROFESSION CHIEF JUSTICE'S COMMENTS [rilOM OUR OWN COmtESI'ONDENT] HAMILTON, Wednesday Further comment on the inadvisability of a petitioner in divorce proceedings serving the papers on respondent was made by the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, in the Supreme Court at Hamilton to-day, when an action for divorce which had been adjourned from last Friday was heard. The case was one in which Jonas William Pratt petitioned f o r a divorce from Ethel Pratt, on the grounds of adultery. Edward Cocker was named as corespondent. When the proceedings were opened on Friday the Chief Justice criticised tho arrangements by which the papers were served on respondent by petitioner himself. Evidence was given to-day by Keginald William Monteith Bennett, solicitor for the petitioner, that ho had been present when tho papers were served,. - It was also stated that co-respondm'it had been seen at respondent's "flat in Auckland, and that he had admitted that lie and respondent were living as man and wife. Rule in England "On Friday afternoon, when the case came before me, it was left in an unsatisfactory position," said the Chief Justice. "In the first place there was 110 evidence against the co-respondent. True, there was an admission by respondent in her letter to petitioner that involved the co-respondent, but that is not evidence against him. Also, I was not satisfied with the proof of service of the citation. "In my opinion it is pessimi exempli (worst possible example) that papers should be served by the petitioner," continued the Chief Justice. "In England there is a special rule which states that 110 service can bo effected by petitioner. That is a very salutary rule. Although we have 110 written rule in New Zealand, I have always adopted the practice of the English rule." Evidence Now Corroborated His Honor stated that had there been no further evidence in the caso than 011 Friday lie would have ordered the suit to be stood down until the next session. However, it was a different matter if the evidence of service was corroborated by an independent witness. If-the case had depended on proof of the service given by petitioner, His Honor said he would not have accepted it unless it had bepn proved by an independent witness. Now it had been shown that service was effected in the presence of a solicitor. "It is desirable that the importance of this matter should be recognised by the law profession," said the Chief .Justice. "I hope 111 future that practitioners will he careful to see that the serving of papers is not effected by petitioner. Perhaps my observation on Friday that divorce decrees cannot be handed out like pounds of tea from a grocer's shop will be better understood now." A decree nisi was granted, to bo moved absolute after three months.