DIVORCE ERROR

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19104, 27 August 1936, Page 5

DIVORCE ERROR

PETITION TO HOUSE MISCJARRIAGE OP JUSTICE PLEA MADE FOE WOMAN ; COMPENSATION URGED ' . (Parliamentary Reporter.) ' . WELLINGTON, this day. A distressing case, said to be unprecedented in New Zealand and perhaps in the .British Empire, was ventilated in the House of Representatives yesterday when the A-to'L Public Petitions Committee submitted a report and recommendation'in respect to the petition of an Auckland,woman, praying for,compensation for ah alleged miscarriage of justice. . < • 'Mr. P, W. Schramm (Lab., Auckland East), the chairman of the committee, said he was directed to report that the following facts had been placed before the committee: That the petitioner was committed to the Porirua Mental Hospital, as a mental defective, in June oi 1923; that, from. September 19, 1923, to February. 27, 1925, she was absent on leave.-and- was with" her husband during the .whole of that .time j that she. absent "on-'Wave"from July 4,' 1930, t«J July IoY 1930,' and from September 19. 1929, to October 19, 1929: that on June 30, 1930, a petition for a divorce was filed in Wellington by her, husband on the grounds that the petitioner's wife was a "person of unsound mind" and was unlikely to recover and had been "continuously' a person o.f .unsound mind for a period of seven' years and more" immediately preceding the filing of the petition, and | that during' the whole of the period Of seven years and more had been confined as .such in the Porirua Mental Hospital. DECREE NISI GRANTED

> On August 5. 1930, a decree nisi in divorce was granted by the court, and at the hearing of the case, which was undefended, the petitioner and a medical officer gave evidence on oath to the effect that, during the whole of the period referred to in the petition, the respondent was continuously confined in the mental hospital as a mental defective, continued • the report. It was also stated that at the hearing of the, case, it was not brought? to the notice of the court that - the respondent was, during that period, -for a considerable time living at home • with her husband. A decree absolute was* granted in November of 1930 unopposed. The respondent wished to defend the case, and no steps were taken on her behalf to bring certain essential facts before the court. Within three weeks after the -decree had been made absolute, the husband' married again. The report stated further that the petitioner to Parliament ' was on leave from June 22, 1931, to June 1 1,1932, and was discharged relieved on June 1, 1932, and that she had recovered. "The committee is, therefore, of the opinion," concluded the report, "that the petitioner is the victim of a. grave miscarriage of justice, and recommends that the petition be referred to the Government fo? most favourable consideration." •• •.••■.'Mr.■•.Schramm declared it was one of ' : the saddest cases placed before the com- -- mrttee-'ior a considerable time--; Wnen : -she was served with the petition' for .a i divorce the" woman was on leave, and she informed the medical officer of the mental hospital that she desired to defend the case, but nothing was done by the medical authorities. The petitioner had not seen her children since the divorce was granted, and the husband refused her leave to see them. "NEGLECT OF DUTY"

"There had been a neglect of duty by some officer of the Crown," said Mr. Schramm. "In fact it is a gross miscarriage of justice against this woman. She has exhausted her legal remedies and all she can do is to come to this House. '.fit.may be asked: What can she do? The divorce cannot be annulled. The only thing we can do is to grant her some money cc mpensation, and I say that ho Government would be doing its duty if it faifed to pay this woman a considerable sum of money as compensation for the wrong inflicted on her through the neglect of duty on the part of some officers of the Crown."

In accordance with the _ law, the Solicitor-General was appointed her guardian ad litem, continued Mr. Schramm. It was the duty of the officer who appeared at the court to make full and complete inquiries as to the case. Incorrect evidence was given in the Supreme Court, as a result of which the woman suffered a grave injury. the law, no divorce could be granted if there was any likelihood of a person recovering if he or she were in a mental hospital. UNPRECEDENTED CASE - Mr. A. S. Richards (Lab., Roskjll), who presented the petition, thanked the committee for its finding in such a painful and distressing case which, he said, was unprecedented in the Dominion and perhaps in the British Empire. Evidence Bad been given by an officer of the State that the petitioner had been confined for seven years in a mental institution, but at no time was she in a mental hospital for more than a few weeks. By no stretch x>f imagination could, it be said that she had been continuously in an institution. Mr. W. P. Endean {Nat., Panjell) said the case represented a violation of one_ of the'fundamental principles of British justice. ■ In a criminal case, the person accused .had the right to be heard in defence, and a defence could even be provided by the Crown. The" evidence had proved that, in three successive vears, the petitioner was absent from the 'mental 'institution- for' - six months .'at a time. • ••'■- The Minister of Health, the Hon. P.: Eraser: Was she actually discharged? " * • OUT ON LEAVE

Mr; Endean said that the woman was not discharged, but was out on leave. If anyone read a letter written by the petitioner, he must' be convinced that the woman was of Sound mind. It was a reasonable request for an investigation. "An injustice has been done to this woman .striking at the fundamental principle of our law," continued Mr. Endean. "The Government should try to rectify • the injustice." She had lost her home and had not seen her two children, who • needed a mother's love and attention. Mr. R." A. Wright (Nat., Wellington Suburbs) supported the committee's recommendation. He agreed that the only thine whjch could be done was to gmrit substantial compensation. • .Mr. Eraser said that a grave storv had bften disclosed. It was extraordinary that the difference between "discharge" and "purple" was not made clear at the nroceedings. Officers of the department did not volunteer information, but answered auestinns -■ ' He could'■ only express surprise that counsel for th«». petitioner had not, in his nu'estions. made the position dear. This was that.' until mental hospital patients received a complete discharge, they were sti)l>onnectcd with the institution. He ronld riot imneine any officer would willingly give false evidence, but if the full