DIVORCE LAW.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20278, 12 April 1934, Page 9

DIVORCE LAW.

Importance of a Prior Separation. INTERESTING JUDGMENT. P<?r Press Association V ELLTNGTON, April 12. A very interesting point relative to divorce law was decided by the Court of Appeal this morning, when giving iudgment in the case of Charles Albert Keast v. Ella Louisa Keast. By this decision it over ruled the two cases of Lunn v. Lunn and M’Kenzie v. M’Kenzie. which have been acted cn by Courts for many years. The case is also of interest in relation to the recent Court of Appeal decision in the case of Anslev v. Ansley, where the Court of Appeal held that a husband was entitled to obtain a divorce on the ground of a .separation order being in full force for three years Or upwards, if there was a prior separation in fact, which was not due or attributable to the husband’s wrongful conduct. This case, however, approved of both Lunn v. Lunn and M’Kenzie v. M’Kenzie. which had decided that a separation order made against a husband was itself conclusive evidence of wrongful conduct on the part of the husband which, in effect, prevented his obtaining a divorce if the divorce action were defended. The. present decision has over-ruled Lunn’s case and M’Kenzie Y. case and has decided that a separation order of itself is not such conclusive evidence but that the Court has power to go behind a separation order and seek the true cause. The Chief Justice. Sir Michael Myers, delivering judgment, remarked that he came to this conclusion with reluctance, but a decision of both divisions of the English Court of Appeal was applicable, and if such decision had been brought to the notice of the trial judges in Lunn v. Lunn and M’Kenzie v. M’Kenzie. those decisions may have been different. The Court, while holding, in addition, that petitioner had not established that prior agreement to separate, alleged by him, ordered the action back to the Supreme Court to be commenced de novo.