DIVORCE LAW.

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume XXI, 13 August 1921, Page 1

DIVORCE LAW.

SEPARATION NOT FIRST STEP. A TIMARU CASE.

Press Assn.—By Tel. —Copyright.

CHRISTCHURCH, Aug. 12. Mr Justice Herdman gave two judgments in the Supreme Court in the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act of last year, which makes divorce much easier than it was before. In each case heard by his Honour a separation and maintenance order had been made by a Magistrate against the husband, and in each, case the husband had petitioned for divorce on the ground of separation for at least three years under the order. His Honour dismissed both petitions.

One of the petitions was by Arthur Reginald Suter Holloway, who is in 'orders as a clergyman of the Anglican Church, but is not actively engaged in Church work, being agricultural instructor under the Canterbury Education Board at Timaru. In this case Mr Justice Herdman said:— “I have come to the conclusion that I should exercise my discretion against the petitioner in the present proceedings. He bases his claim to have his marriage dissolved upon a separation order made against him by a magistrate at the instance of his wife on April 10, 1915. The grounds upon which the separation order was made, were that he had been guilty of persistent cruelty to his wife, ana threatened to cut her throat, and had habitually used insulting vile language to her, and kicked and injured his daughter, who was ten years of age, having failed to provide his wife with adequate maintenance. Petitioner now says that these allegations were untrue, and that he allowed the order to pass without opposition. Whatever the petitioner did, or d.d not, in fact do at the time the magistrate made the order, it does not seem to me to matter now. The magistrate heard the complaint and rust have acted upon some proof, when he made ti.c order. He must have considered any consent to an older filed by the petitioner, and he must have decided th-<t some, if not all of the allegations made by the wife had been proved or admitted. If petitioner filed a consent, as it appears he did, then his consent, if it had any legal effect at all, amounted to an admission of the charges made against him.

“Without any hesitation I decide that in such a case, relief should not be granted, neither upon the ground of public interest, nor upon the grou •<! that a dissolution of thte marriage may be of advantage to either petitioner or respondent, or both, should the Court interfere. Respondent does not want her marriage dissolved, and petitioner is certainly not entitled to receive any favour at the hands of the Court. If I grant a decree in this case, then it seems to me I lay down the principle, that a husband, having grown tired of his wife, and wishing! to have his ma r-