DIVORCE LAW.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16366, 3 March 1921, Page 5

DIVORCE LAW.

[Pep. Press Association. 3 INVERCARGILL, March 2. A petition for divorce, under clause 4 of the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Amendment Act, 1920, was before Mr Justice Sim at the Supreme Court to-day, in the case of .Summerville v. Summerville, the husband’s petition. which was not opposed. Counsel for petitioner (Hr A. Stout) said that the case had been before his Honor previously. the ground of the petition then being desertion. The petition had been dismissed, bis Honor holding that desertion had been pnu-tically by mutual consent of the parties. Since then a new Act had come into force, which purported to provide for divorce on the grounds of mutual consent. 14 is. Honor: Does it? MY Stout: T submit, No. His Honor said there was no affidavit bv petitioner. The petition hinged on tb rj % grounds oT mutual consent and unies-Tthe petitioner was to swear that the case could not proceedMr Stout said that petitioner had previously sworn that to the best of his ! recollection the separation was not by mutual consent. The judge said that probablv the Full Court would have to consider ’the matter. If the section was read literally it was obvious that the words in question had been thrust into i'i without much thought. The Full Court would have to decide whether the words “three years” applied to a separation order, although not under deeds; or whether the words were meaningless and could not be given effect to. He understood that the words were not in the Bill drafted hy the Hon -T. Mncgre"or, but were inserted by the Lower House on the motion of a gentleman who had had a good deal to do with divorce. He hoped to hare an opportunity of discussing the position with other judges at the Court of Appeal in April His Honor ordered that a petition setting out the facts under section 4 should be filed, together with a verifying affidavit, when decision would be reserved.