WOMEN’S CLOTHING

Waipukurau Press, Volume XXVIII, Issue 129, 26 May 1932, Page 2

WOMEN’S CLOTHING

Undignified Dispute BETWEEN BACHELOR JUDGE AND A LORD OF APPEAL By Telegraph—Copyright—Press Assn, LONDON, May 24. Mr Justice McCardie has caused a sensation in rebuking Lord Justice Scrutton, Lord of Appeal, for the latter’s recent remarks when reversing a judgment of the bachelor Judge.

Mr Justice McCardie said: “Before this case begins I wish to say that in the event of an appeal I shall not supply a copy of my notes until I am satisfied that Lord Justice Scrutton will not be a member of the Appeal Court. I regret that it has become my duty to administer this public rebuke to Lord Justice Scrutton.” Lord Justice Scrutton had said that ho was surprised that an unmarried Judge should have explained what was tho proper underclothing women should wear.

‘‘The Times/’ in an editorial referring to Mr Justice McCardie’s “pontifical retaliation/’ hopes “the undignified dispute will go no further, as it is quite inconsistent with the traditions of the Bench. Frank and fearless statements of judical opinion should be encouraged, but they should not be incompatible with tact and good manners. Happily such incidents as yesterday’s are rare. Though they will not lessen the public confidence in the judical system, they must inevitably tend to lessen public respect for the members of the judiciary who provoke them.”

“If there is to be a discussion of the relations of husbands and wives, it would come better from judges who have more than a theoretical knowledge of husbands and wives.” So said Mr Justice Scrutton, Lord Justice of Appeal, and a married man with three sons and one daughter, reversing a judgment of tic famous bachelor judge Mr Justice McCardie, early this month.

“Mr Justice McCardie,” he said, had referred to judges who possess sociological knowledge, but I think that the less sociological knowledge is brought to bear on legal questions the better. I am a little surprised that an unmarried gentleman should, as Mr Justice McCardie has done in another case, explain what is the proper underclothing that the ladies should wear. I think that these things are better disregarded in legal discussions.” The judge added that, although means of enforcing a husband’s and a wife’s respective rights of consortium had materially altered —the husband being unable to employ physical force —there still remained means of enforcing those rights, notably by the restition of conjugal rights.

Mr Justice McCardie was wrong in thinking that there was no evidence on which a jury properly directed, could give a verdict for plaintiff. The case ought to have been retired before a second jury. Lords Justices Green and Slesscr

concurred.

This was the case in which John Place, a Cambridge grocer’s assistant, sued Dr Charles Searle for damages, alleging that the doctor had enticed his wife away from him. Mr Justice Mcardie found for defendant, and the result of this appeal enables Place to have a fresh trial.