PUBLIC MORALS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16735, 17 May 1922, Page 6

PUBLIC MORALS.

UNSAVOURY DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS. JUDGE FORBIDS PUBLICATION. In the interests of public morals, his Honor 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, Christchurch, < for divorce from William Smith MacGibbon, Christchurch, accountant, on tile ground of adultery with a. young woman in Hagley Park on February 17. 1922. “ The evidence will be unpleasant far beyond the average in eases of adultery.” Mr A- T. Donnelly, who, with Mr R. A. Cutlibert, appeared for petitioner. said. *' I don t ask that the case should be tried in camera, but that publication of the reports should be restricted to names of the parties, the grounds of the petition, and the Court’s decision.” The application was made under Section 65 of tile Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act, 1917. It provides that the Court may, on tire 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 the' publication of any report of the evidence of qfc of other proceedings The clause states that any breach of the order, or any colourable or: attemp - od evasion of it, may be dealt vith contempt of Court. Mr Donnelly also asked that the order of the Court should cover prohibiten against publishing tlie name ot the young woman concerned m the charge, on the ground that she was not a party to the suit, and could not be hoar-. in her own defence. In support of hi? general application, he quoted from a decision by hie Honor, Mr Justice Edwards in T. v. T. in the Supreme Court in Napier, April 17. 191*. when an application was made that the petition should be heard in chambers and for an order forbidding publication ot reports. Mr Justice Edwards said: * - There are grove objections to the trial of divorce proceedings in chambers, and the power to order such a trial ought never to he exercised wit.i out every reason to show, as the statute requires, that a trial in chambers is really in the interests of the public morals. I cannot make an order for trial of this suit in chambers. The application for an order forbidding the publication of any report or account ot the evidence or other proceedngs in the suit stands upon a. different footing. Rarely, if ever, can it be in the interest of public morals that the details of divorce proceedings shall be published for the delectation of persons who desire to gloat over such unsavoury matter. In the present case, the Press are at. liberty to publish the names of the parties, tho nature and ground of' the suit and the nature of the decree made by the Court, hut- no more. The name of the person with whom respondent is alleged to have committed adultery must not be published. The ground for this part of the order is that that person is not a party to the .suit and cannot be heard in her own defence or in palliation of her misconduct, if misconduct has been committed.” All* AI. J. Gresson who. with Mr C. S. Thomas, appeared for respondent, said he agreed with Air 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 lias the assurance of counsel that the details are more than usually unpleasant. T think that an order should he made,” his Honor

said. “The object of the clause is to prevent 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 Air Justice Edwards, and i will follow his decision.”

1 ho parties in the rase were married in Christchurch on February 4. 1019, arid lived together until recently There are no children by the marriage