Divorce in New Zealand.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XLV, Issue 2, 13 July 1910, Page 16

Divorce in New Zealand.

MR. JUSTICE DENNISTON GIVES HIS VIEWS. SEX-EQUALITY FAVOURED. LONDON, June 3. Mr. Justice Denniston, who is on a visit to England, appeared as a witness this week before the Royal Commission on Divorce, and gave his Views regarding the divorce system in New Zenland. His Honor said that in New Zealand band was now a ground for divorce at the suit of the wife. Wilful and continnous desertion by husband or wife for it period of five years without just cause was a ground for divorce at the suit Of the deserted party. The fact that ti husband had during four years and upwards been an habitual drunkard, and had either habitually left his wife without means of support er had habitually been guilty of cruelty towards her, and the fact that a wife hud for a like period been an habitual drunkard and had habitually neglected her domestic duties and rendered herself unfit to discharge them, was a ground for divorce of the husband or wife of the offending party. The conviction and sentence to imprisonment or penal servitude for seven years or upwards for attempting to take the life of husband or wife was

a ground for divorce at tile suit of such husband or wife. By an amending Act passed in 1907, there were added these grounds: — “That the respondent had been convicted of the murder of a child of the petitioner or respondent; that the respondent was a lunatic or person of unsound mind, and had been confined as such in any asylum for a period ar periods not less in aggregate years within twelve immediately preceding the filing of the petition, and was unlikely to recover from such lunacy or imsoundness of mind.”

With regard to the placing of husband and wife on an equality as to the legal consequences of infidelity, he thought it Tested with those who advocated discrimination between the rights of the respective parties to the contract to show that stack discrimination was required in the public interest. The alteration would undoubtedly, to some extent, encourage and facilitate collusive divorces. If misconduct- were all that need be proved, the lenient view taken by many of this matrimonial offence might offer inducement to abstention from defence and to collusive furnishing iff evidence, or apparent evidence, ef the ■offence. He had had cases of this dash. The difficulty could be, to some extent, met by eateful scrutiny of the evidence. He did not think the inert risk of collusion was sufficient to justify depriving the wife of the right. The greater number of applications fot divoi-ce which had come before him haff been on the ground of desertion. All cases under the head of habitual drunkenness which had come before him ih which relief had been granted had disclosed great unhappiness and hardship. The conditions of a family, one of the heads of Which Was an habitual drunkard wns so painful and so demoralising to children as to justify the extreme rtffief. In cases where the husband was 'the petitioner he was generally ordered to make some provision for the wifo. He had had no ease under the grottWff of conviction and imprisonment for seven years for attempting to take the life of husband or wife. In regard to the publication of reports of divorce cases, the Court might, on the application of the petftftffler or respondent, or nt its discretion in the in tercets tof public morals, make nn order that ttw publication of any report should he dealt With as contempt of Court. In reply to Lord Guthrie, the Witness said divorce jnrindietioti was Confined to judges of the Supreme Court. 'lTiey wore six in number, and sat in different districts, meeting at intervals to sit as a court of •ppeal. Juries were -Soni when damages ware claimed in divwce suits, aud the parties were always represented by counsel.