AN UNSAVOURY CASE

Southland Times, Issue 19518, 18 May 1922, Page 6

AN UNSAVOURY CASE

PUBLICATION OF REPORTS FORBIDDEN. (Per United Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, May 17. In the interests of public morals Mr Justice Adams made an order forbidding publication of reports* of a divorce case tried in the Supreme Court to-day. The case was a petition by Mary Ann Mac Gibbon, of Christchurch, for divorce from William Smith Mac Gibbon, Christchurch, accountant, on the ground of adultery with a young woman in Hagley Park on February 17, 1922. “The evidence will be unpleasant far beyond the average in cases of adultery,” said Mr A. T. Donnelly who, with Mr R. A. Cuthbert, appeared for the petition. “I don’t ask that the case should be tried in camera, but that publication of reports should be restricted to the names of the parties, the grounds of the petition, and the Court’s decision.” The application was made under Section 65 of Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act, 1917, which provides that the Court may, on the application of either party, in divorce proceedings, or at its discretion if it thinks proper in the interests of public morals, hear the proceedings in chambers and may make an order forbidding publication of any report of the evidence. In support of his general application, Mr Donnelly quoted from a decision by Mr Justice Edwards in the Supreme Court at Napier on April 17, 1917, when an application was made that the petition should be heard in chambers and for an order forbidding publication of reports. Mr M. J. Gresson who, with Mr C. S. Thomas appeared for respondent, said he agreed with Mr Donnelly. The-facts in the case were extremely unpleasant and it was difficult to see how any good would be served by publicity. “Discretion rests with the Court, and when the Court has the assurance of counsel that the details are moie than usually unpleasant I think an order should be made,” His Honour said. “The object of the clause is to prevent the publication of information that grossly panders to certain inclinations. I will make an order that publication must be restricted to the names of the parties, the allegations on which the petition is founded, and the Court’s finding. That is the limitation described by Mr Justice Edwards, and I will follow his decision.”