WIFE’S COMPASSION.

Otago Witness, Issue 3854, 24 January 1928, Page 15

WIFE’S COMPASSION.

- ■ - -O “OTHER WOMAN’S” UNBORN CHILD. DIVORCE PRESIDENT’S COMMENT. (From Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, December 14. Giving his decision in an adjourned summons at the Divorce Court, Lord Merrivale said the matter had caused, him considerable difficulty, and a proportionate amount of concern. The facts were remarkable. The parties in the case were a young couple who married in 1921. the husband being a man of some means and considerable expectations. Last year the wife became aware of her husband’s relations with another young woman, and in November, 1926, the husband left his .wife. It was not until last October that the wife learnt the full story of the husband’s return to tb e other woman. She knew this when the husband gave her information with a view to the wife proceeding for a divorce. On October 25 she filed a petition for divorce, and was informed by her husband’s solicitors that the case could not be defended. This was a foregone conclusion, because the proceedings, had been started at the instance of the husband. His Lordship said that on November 10 a summons was taken out by the petitioning wife to try and get the suit heard immediately as a child was expected as the result of the amour between th e husband and the other woman. 44 Anyone familiar with the procedure of the Divorce Division,” said tbe President, 44 will appreciate what an astounding proposition this was. It is, in fact, a proposal at the instance of the wife that the court should take extraordinary steps so that this man should cease to be the lawful husband of his lawful wife, and be in a position to take another woman for his wife.” - Lord Merrivale said very moving coreumstances were presented to the court by the petitioner, who desired the marriage dissolved in her compassion for an unborn child, for whom there was no possibility of applying the Legitimacy Declaration Act, 1926. His Lordship concluded : “ I hope I have not been insensible to the arguments addressed to m e on compassionate grounds, but it is quite clear that mischievous consequences would follow the making of the order asked for. In my opinion it would be contrary to public policy to do so, and it would impair all the safeguards with which the divorce jurisdiction is surrounded.” Th e application was dismissed.