AWKWARD FOR HUBBIE.

NZ Truth, Issue 854, 1 April 1922, Page 5

AWKWARD FOR HUBBIE.

John Leonard; through Lawyer P. B. Cooke, wanted the Court to cross out his conviction of having had carnal knowledge with a female detained under the provisions of the Mental Defectives Act. There is* no need to' ,ro into, details; suffice it to say that Leonard took a trip out from Christchurch to see his' Wife where she was, and there committed, or was said to have committed, the act which brought a hatful of trouble his way. The jury had strongly, recommended Leonard to mercy, said counsel, as it believed that he had not known anything about the ruling and because the hospital authorities had been lax enough not to warn-him. The Court was asked whether m the circumstances hubbie had committed an offence and whether the verdict was really one of "guilty." , Lawyer Cooke had .walked into Court with a pile of authorities which when investigated seemed to show, he said, that venereal disease was the only trouble recognised as a bar to matrimonial relations' between husband and wife, whereupon • Judge Stringer expressed 1 doubts: "Is there a limitation to physical disease ? What about mental disease ?" The C.J^ also had doubts whether the old rulings could stand up. against civilisation and the progress that went with it. The law, he thought, had a eugenic effect nowadays. The Solicitor-General opined lihat surely hubbie would not plead, that he did not know that 'his wife . was a. mental defective. . The Legislature knew what it' meant when it framed the Statute and it meant that it was not a question of husband and wife at all but was one. of protecting the patients from themselves and of protecting the next generation. If the Legislature had wanted to except husbands and wives it could very easily have said so. In any case, surely the proposition that a husband should have the fight to intercourse with his mentally deficient wife was repellent to any decent-thinking .- man, and m his opinion there could be no question m this case of the common law rights of husband and wife. The Court thought that it had better look over authorities and details and give its decision later on.