EXPRESSION OF CENSURE

Southland Times, Issue 24129, 18 May 1940, Page 6

EXPRESSION OF CENSURE

STERN REBUKE FROM CHIEF JUSTICE FATHER SEEKS CUSTODY OF DAUGHTERS (United Press Association) PALMERSTON NORTH, May 17. When the circumstances of a divorce were mentioned to the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) in the Supreme Court they provoked a stern rebuke from the Bench. The counsel for the wife, Mr A. J. Mazengarb, of Wellington, was defending an application by the husband under a habeas corpus for the custody of two young girls of the marriage. He said that when the husband sent his wife a conciliatory letter asking her to return to him he also sent the draft of a reply which she was to rewrite and send him so that he could proceed with the proceedings for the restitution of conjugal rights. His Honour commented that the whole thing was a scandal, in other words the whole thing was a Mr Mazengarb: A fraud on the Court. His Honour: On the divorce laws.

“On previous occasions I expressed my opinion about this short cut to divorce and to my mind it is' regrettable,” continued his Honour, “however, it is a matter for legislature and not for the Court. It would be a very good thing, I think to have the law amended to prevent a suit for divorce if instituted on the grounds of failure to comply with the decree for restitution before the expiration of three years from the actual separation. If that was enacted we would not have a collusion of this kind. The case is one which should be brought to the notice of the Solicitor-General to see if it is possible to punish them for this collusion.”

Addressing Mr A. M. Ongley, counseh for the husband, his Honour said: “I hope I have not said anything by way of injustice to the husband. I suppose that when he was claiming a divorce, in answer to a question from the judge, he solemnly swore that he honestly wanted his wife back. Now we are hearing all about it.” His Honour elicited that the final separation was on October 4, 1938. A conciliatory letter was sent on October 5. The reply was received on October 6 and the petition was launched on October 7. Then his Honour added: “The dates are sufficient. Had the Court known the true circumstances it would not have granted a decree for restitution, and the husband would not have got his divorce for three years. The Court has been grossly deceived and no judge could allow that sort of thing to pass without an expression of the greatest censure.”