DIVORCE BY COUPON.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20361, 19 July 1934, Page 5

DIVORCE BY COUPON.

Sale Across Post Office Counters. ENGLISH JUDGE’S COMMENT. (Special to the “ Star.”) LONDON, June 7. A suggestion of a possible future when coupons for divorce will be sold across post office counters was made by Sir Boyd Merriman, President of the Divorce Court. Mrs Valerie Edith Rose Leggatt, of Exmouth, had petitioned for divorce from Lieutenant-Commander Donald Hugh Leggatt, R.N. (retired). The petition was undefended. Sir Boyd Merriman held that there had been collusion and he dismissed the case. “To those who think,” he said.

“ that ill-assorted couples should be able to present their cases without the court being obliged by statute to exercise any vigilance against collusion, this may appear to be a hard case, but in the maintenance of the marriage status there is another party—even more interested than the spouses themselves —and that is the State. New Source of Revenue. “It is conceivable—and I use the word advisedly, as I certainly do not advocate or anticipate any such state of things—that, at some distant date, the Slate might be content to limit its interest in divorce to collecting the revenue from stamps on agreements between parties or the sale of coupons for dissolution of marriage across post office counters.” At the beginning of his judgment. Sir Boyd said he was willing to believe that there was ample justification for the suggestion that Mr Leggatt was improvident in money matters, and that he had exhibited a great lack of responsibility to his wife and child and indifference to their welfare. That was very reprehensible; but not a ground for divorce.

The petition was based on the husband’s alleged adultery at an hotel last January.

In December, 1930, the president continued, Mrs Leggatt wrote to her husband saying that to face the future with him “ would only lead to appalling misery.” “ I Still Worship You.” That letter was a shock an* surprise to the husband, who replied, “ I still worship you and cannot think of the future without you.” To another letter he replied that he was not inclined to give his wife grounds for divorce. The correspondence* said the president, exhibited almost every vice, every taint, that could be exhibited in the preparation of a divorce case. There was an incitement by the wife of her husband to commit adultery, which he had no desire to commit, in order that she might get her freedom. “ I am convinced,” the president added, “ that the husband would not have stayed at a London hotel with a womap but for the understanding that had been arrived at between himself and his wife.”