DETAILS OF DIVORCES

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12424, 19 April 1926, Page 6

DETAILS OF DIVORCES

PUBLICATION PROHIBITED BILL PASSES SECOND READING THREE VOTES AGAINST 222 By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright. Australian and N.Z. Cable Association. LONDON, April’l6. The House of Commons reassembled at 11 o’clock this morning, and devoted the sitting, to the discussion of Mr G. M. Kindersley’s Judicial Proceedings Bill, otherwise known as the Regulation of Reports Bill. The Bill provides that in reports of divorce cases only the names and addresses of the parties, a concise statement of the grounds, submissions on points of Taw, tho judge’s summing up, the verdict, and the judge’s comments may be published by the Press. Infringement carries a penalty of £SOO, and three months’ imprisonment. Mr Kindersley said that most of the newspa-pers had a good sense of duty, but some deliberately exploited Unsavoury cases. Sir W. E. Hume-Williams, K.C., moved the rejection of the Bill. He said that the present law was framed to protect the very people the Bill purported to befriend, and to prevent the evils which the Bill was designed to stop. Publicity ,w*as the greatest deterrent from easy ncoesss to the Divorce Court. The Bill would make aocess easier. If they were going to clean the public stable, why leave untouched books and plays dealing with sex matters? Sir W. Joynson-Hicks, the Home Secretary, said that newspaper owners believed that there was no via media between hearing cases in camera and letting things go on as now. Personally, he would never force all cases to be heard in camera. He announced that Mr Baldwin had paired in support of tho Bill. The amendment was rejected, and the Bill passed its second reading by 222 votes to 3-