FORTY YEARS AFTER

NZ Truth, Issue 851, 11 March 1922, Page 6

FORTY YEARS AFTER

■ ♦ Barrister Says Divorce Law is Cruel and Barbarous The Suit of Wahrefr •■ v. Wahren,

The broadening of the divorce law in f New Zealand-,' enabling the' courts m their discretion to grant decrees where there has been mutual separation for a period of three years and over, has resulted m good business for the legal profession. The lawyers have undoubtedly benefited and one would hardly expect them to quarrel with their bread and butter these slumpsome days. This unusual stand, however, seems to have been adopted) by Mr. E. G. Jellicoe, m the Wellington' Supreme Court, on Saturday morning last, when he appeared m a suit instituted by Godtfried Wahren (Mr. P. S. K. Macassey) on behalf of Emily Wahren, on the ground, of mutual sep--aratlon for three years, as ■ prescribed m the 1920 amending Act. Petitioner gave evidence that he and his wife were born m Switzerland, the country of perpendicular scenery, condensed milk, and yodelling. They were married • in' London m ISBO, and> they came to New Zealand four years later. They had resided continuously m Wellington, during which, time eight little Wahrens came into the world, and six of them had grown up into big Wahrens. Petitioner said he had left home owing- to a disagreement, and the separation had continued. Then Mr. Jellicoe had his say. "My client," he said, "is -NOW A WORN WOMAN. She married at the age of ,17, and> has borne petitioner eight children. To-day she finds herself In the divorce court, the innocent victim of a cruel and barbarous law made by a self-righteous generation." Judge Hosking: I don't think I can accept that, Mr. Jellicoe. We cannot question the law here. If respondent wishes to oppose the petition she may do so, and then the court may consider the Question of which of the parties is to blame. If the court deems petitioner to blame, .then it may exercise its discretion and dis ; allow the petition. Counsel: The position she finds* herself m, your Honor, is that without having committed- any wrong, she, by reason of this law, is compelled to submit to a dissolution of her marriage. ■■■■.. His Honor: I cannot allow that to pass unchallenged. If she is not to blame the court can refuse to grant a decree. In this case it may be difficult to discover who N is to blame, for the separation occurred six years ago. --v Counsel: I can only repeat that my client has done no wrong, but she has had to appear m court to gratify the desire of the person, who, forty years ago, had # sworn TO LOVE AND CHERISH HER. His Honor: I cannot allow you to proceed m this way. Unless it is desired to oppose the suit I shall make a decree. . ■ . Mr.. Jellicoe then stated that he did not intend to oppose the petition. The court therefore, made out a -decree nisi. It was stated that the par-, ties had come to a satisfactory agreement m rega£d_toalimony : _