THE NEW ORDER.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXIV, Issue 927, 23 November 1933, Page 8

THE NEW ORDER.

Divorce and Changing Times. INDISCREET FRIENDS. (Special to the " Star.”) SYDNEY, November 12. Divorce suits are usually monotonous and dull—the standard type claims to have been evolved long ago—but the case, Howe v. Howe, heard here recently by Mr Justice Boyce, was in some ways an exception to the rule. The Howes are musical people, English folk, who have been living at North Shore for some years. Madame Howe is a widely known vocalist, and her husband was choirmaster and organist at churches in which she sang. Two years ago the wife went to England on a visit which lasted twelve months and during her absence Howe formed a friendship with Barbara Bates, an English girl who was living in the same boarding-house. When Mrs Howe came back, what she saw and what she heard seemed to her to justify an application for divorce; alleging persistent and systematic cruelty as a further ground. Howe denied the allegation of misconduct and Miss Bates appeared in Court as “ determined to defend her reputation.” In the end, after a protracted hearing, during which Vincent Howe, the son of the house, an intelligent boy of 14, was called to give evidence—a most painful situation for everybody concerned—the Judge decided that the charge of misconduct was not proved, but that the charge of cruelty had been substantiated, and on this last ground he granted Mrs Howe a judicial separation. Unusual Features. In most respects this case approximates to what have been called the “ standard type ” of divorce. What differentiated it from other members of the species was the attitude that the learned Judge adopted toward the evidence, and the questions that he felt called upon to answer. To appreciate the point of view taken by Mr Justice Boyce, one must remember that the evidence, superficially considered, seemed strongly adverse to Howe and Miss Bates. As the Judge remarked, it was shown that “at several boardinghouses the respondent and the intervener were very friendly, that they called each other by their Christian names, at all events in private, that they went surfing together, driving out in Howe’s car, that Howe was fre- 1 quently in Miss Bates’s bedroom, occasionally when they were clad in dress-ing-gowns; that he had supper or a glass of wine in her bedroom; that he took her to the pictures; and that he was sometimes absent from his bedroom at night.” There is no dbubt that all these facts, taken cumulatively, would have been accepted as proof positive of guilt a very few years ago. But Mr Justice Boyce holds that as “ the times have changed,” our standards of conduct must be assumed to have changed with them. Significant Passage. The passage in his Honor’s judgment dealing with this aspect of the case is so significant that it is well worth transcribing:—“ln these days of mixed bathing, backless costumes, shorts and beach pyjamas, when the chaperon is only a memory and when young people of either sex mix freely, untrammelled by many of the conventions of the past, a Judge, in my view, must take the world as he finds it, and not condemn parties as guilty of adultery because they exhibit the freedom of action which is now so common.” It would seem, said his Honor, that in these boarding-houses it is the usual thing for guests to provide supper in their respective rooms; and two witnesses were called from the house where Howe and Miss Bates stayedwitnesses “against whom nothing can be said ” —to testify that this practice was common there. Finally, the Judge stated that having heard Miss Bates give evidence, he believed her, and though she had been indiscreet—and for her indiscretion he ordered her to pay her own costs—he, thought that “ innocence is quite si reasonable inference from the conduct of the parties.” The Second Count. The second count in Mrs Howe’s appeal —that of cruelty—also provided some interesting material for judicial consideration. The evidence went to show that Madame Howe was decidedly emotional and “ nervy ” and was, as the judge said, difficult to live with, but the evidence also proved that Howe had been not only bad-tempered but brutal, that when sHe returned from England he expressed regret that she had ever come back, and that he had assaulted her several times, and on at least one occasion he struck her in the street, that he had threatened to kill her, and also to commit suicide. Howe said that his wife had condoned both the alleged misconduct and cruelty (if any), and that his wife’s actions had contributed to any sort of misconduct that could be charged against him. But Mr Justice Boyce, though he would not grant a divorce, made an order for a judicial separation on the ground that Madame Howe’s health and possibly her mental condition, would be gravely endangered if she were compelled to live with Howe again. It should be added that the 'wife, who wanted a divorce and nothat h rst refused the concession by *he Court, but was later induced to accept it. Present-day Freedom. But, of course, the arresting feature Of this case is the question raised or suggested by his Honor in giving his decision the extent to which the freedom of present-day life is compatible with the accepted standards of social morality. Miss Bates, the intervener m this case, naturally regarded herself aS j ' vic . tlm malicious insinuations and she aired her grievance in an interview which she gave to a local newspaper after the case was over. “ Why must some people be so narrow-mmded?” she asked, bitterly; and she carried the war into the enemy’s country by asserting that “ we as a race now are just as fine morally as in the days gone by, when conventl°r> w ? s and exacting.” Possibly so, but that is not precisely r e P. oint issue. With all respect for Miss Bates’s feelings, she had only herself to blame. If young women take the risk of behaving in such a way that it is difficult for the average outsider to discover whether, as people used to lose ” or not, they may expect to be misunderstood. I remember, in the good cld silent film days, a movie in which C olleen Moore tried to show how very badly a “ good ” girl could behave,

and then to show what a picture of outraged innocence the “ good ” girl could become when rude men took her for what she seemed to be. It was a very instructive little Ifilm, and perhaps if Miss Bates had enjoyed the advantage of seeing it she might have decided to curb her tendency to “ indiscretion ” —as Mr Justice Boyce said —before it led to unpleasant consequences.