DIVORCE LAW.

Western Star, 7 February 1922, Page 4

DIVORCE LAW.

LIMITING ITS SCOPEWELLINGTON, Feb. 1. -Council Amendments. — important amendments have boon made 1 by the Legislative Council to the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Aimhdment Bill, chief among them bciiiu one safeguarding decisions under the Aw of 1920. The Bill was rfijsorted back to the Council/ from the .Statutes Revision Committee to-

Sir Francis Bell explained that the committee suggested that there snculd be a modifica'ticn of the defini-tio-o or conduction which is to prevent a petitioner from the right to a decree. A further amendment was for the purpose of enabling a petitioner barred by the clause to apply again for divorce if he or is be could persuade the other, party to a<aee. The clause as returned from the committee reads: "Provided that ii> upon the hearing of a petition under this section respondent opposes the making of the decree -:,i dissolution, and it irs proved to the satisfaction of the court that separation wan dire to tlio wrongful act or conduct of the petitioner, the court shall not make upon such petition a docre? r.f dissolution of marriage.' A new sub-clause, lie said, had been adde# •., to prevent this clause being used io reverse decrees of the court ahcrly made. However much lion. irf!v:t!emnn might think those decrees should net have been made, and al- ; thi.u.'jh they wove only decrees nir,i, J L't ; ciitioiier had "the right to expect I them to be made absolute. The new j sub-clause reads; ''Nothing in this section shall be deenmd to apply to j any decree nisi heretofore made by the court or to prevent the making absolute of any such decree nisi." The amendmente outlined! by ■Sir Francis were adopted, and pro- [ gross was reported to enable a. new clause to be proposed by the. Hon. j 1:1. Trigps to be considered. His sug- > gestion is that clause 4 of fhe 1920 j Act, which says that the court may j make a decree for dissolution of marI riage where the parties have been separated for not lees than. three years should he amended to prevent a. deed or agreement of separation or separation' by mutual consent to be taken into consideration by the court. This would Hm,it, the power of the court under the section to granting a decree to the parties to " a decree of judicial reparation, or to a separation order made by a stipendiary magistrate or by a resident magistrate."

Petitions bearing 23,568 signatures have been presented to Parliament this scission asking for a repeal of section "4 of the Divorce Act, 1920, which gives the guilty party the right to petition for'a diecree. The Public Petitions Committee, reporting 011 flie last of these petitions to-day, recommends amendment of the law with a view to depriving the guilty party of all right to initiate proceeding-.

—An Urgent Case.—*

I The member for Christchureb East, lin asking the Government to-day i whether it will bruiir in an amendment of the Divorce Act this session, putf forward a remarkable pica for urgency. He hat' 1 presented a .potiii.on on behalf of a constituent pray- :»£ for an amendment of the divorce law. and the committee had f.-.vonr-ab!y reported on it, but if the Dill was not passed soon the lady concerned would! have a decree made absolute against her on February IG. Mr Massey said he expected the Bill to make its appearance in a day or two, ,and he hoped it would be , pasved before the end of the cession. '*. vs i' *.y .rn N '?t,?T / * "yrw i^*v Considerable alarm is felt in busi. nesi circles (says the Dune din Star) on account of a rumour which h;i6 j gdnecl currency in Wellington, that tho Telegraph Department contemplates junking a substantial increase ,in the rates for telephones. Business nrrriis having a general mse for : the infitnjnient are to be charged '£,2l: per annum: second class users in I burineus .premises, £18;' and private } eu.lHcribers either £8 or £9, accordin;;: to distance. Some members- of thf Legislature ought to question the -Hon, Mf Coattfs on. the subject and gsi a d%ute iVjily %r'eto,