THE ADVOCATE 461
VOL. 78 PART 3 MAY 2020
Divorces continue their steady advance in number. It is unusual to see a
case on the week’s trial list where the names of the parties to the action are
different. There is a strong attitude in sections of the public mind and
expressed in the press that too many people are getting divorced, and that it
ought to be prevented. By the exercise of unusually ingenious mental
processes, even in times like these, blame is cast on lawyers and judges for
the increasing number of divorce actions. There seems to be a strange view
that where two people have broken up and broken off a marriage partnership,
it would be a good thing to compel them to stay married, and in any event to
make it as difficult and expensive as possible for them to obtain a divorce. So
strong was this pressure that the Government for a time contemplated the
appointment of a King’s Proctor, in order that the ecclesiastical barrier of collusion
might be heightened and fortified. The former view that divorce jurisdiction
is designed to arm the law to punish adultery seems, however, to be
giving way before the modern attitude in most civilized countries that marriage
is a contractual relation that should be abrogated by law when it has
been discontinued in fact. That ought to be enough to start an argument.
The Court of Appeal list carries an ever-increasing number of criminal
appeals. Some, of course, are genuine and well advised. Many are taken in
person, with the assistance of available sets of precedents, with the idea of
having a shot at it anyway, including in any event a holiday from jail to
attend Court in Vancouver or Victoria.
In all my days I have never seen wrangling between Court and Counsel
at such a low ebb. I listened to Stuart Henderson arguing a criminal appeal
for upwards of half an hour the other afternoon. And not a cross word was
spoken. Not one. It was not like that in the olden days. This is principally to
the credit of the Bench. Lest this letter should come before other eyes than
yours, I should not get personally specific about this. But it is many moons
since I have heard a single rave in the Barristers’ Room. The accepted mode
nowadays is to praise judges, especially new ones. If that isn’t revolutionary
change, what is? If I refer to them by their first names, nobody but you and
I will know who I am talking about.
Arthur pulled me out of a sweet jam the other day. It was Friday, and I
had a case that simply had to go on. My medical witness told me before Court
that he would have to be at the hospital by noon, law suit or no law suit. And
would be there the rest of the day. I sent up an S.O.S. note to the Bench, with
the result that a double-barrelled divorce trial was halted in mid-stride to
hear my short but vital witness, and before lunch I finished my case.
Frankly, I cannot sustain the mood to write you more of our trivial affairs
here at home. In these, the most tremendous destiny-laden days in the history
of modern civilization all of us even back here feel the pressure to the