LAW OF DIVORCE
INTERVENTION BY CROWN COMMENT OF JUDGE (Per Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, this day. In connection with recent divorce proceedings in Christchurch in which the Solicitor-General intervened, it is pointed out that although the Supreme Court refused to rescind the decree nisi, as asked for hv the Solicitor-General, the presiding judge, Mr. Justice Heed, nevertheless stated in his judgment that it was clearly the duty of the SolicitorGeneral, upon the information communicated to him. to bring the facts before the court, and that in such circumstances the modern practice in England where, as in this case, there bad been concealment of material facts—even though an innocent concealment—was to order the petitioner to pay the costs of intervention.
His Honor further stated that he would have followed the same course, but for the fact that he had no jurisdiction to do so.
It was important, His Honor said, that the Solicitor-General should have conferred upon him the fullest powers of intervention when public policy demanded it, 'and without cost to the country when such intervention was justifiable.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PBH19331125.2.32
Bibliographic details
Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18255, 25 November 1933, Page 4
Word Count
177LAW OF DIVORCE Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18255, 25 November 1933, Page 4
Using This Item
The Gisborne Herald Company is the copyright owner for the Poverty Bay Herald. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of the Gisborne Herald Company. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.