Interest and Expense on Dishonourned Cheque

(By S.A. Karim, Advocate, Thiruvananthapuram)

Money is what money does. In trade and commerce, cheque, bill of exchange, and promissory note are used commonly instead of liquid cash. These three are called negotiable instruments. In number of dealings, cheque stands first. Minimum three parties involve in a cheque. Drawer is one who deposits money with the drawee, who is always a bank. Payee is the receiver of money from drawee bank. There, are holder and holder in course. In fact, they are legal heirs of payee and have the same rights and obligations. Drawer issues cheque on the drawee bank, who pays the money to the payee. There ends the transaction. This system has been built upon trust and is the same throughout the globe.

Once a cheque is dishonoured, there begins trouble. The relationship between the drawer and payee is debtor and creditor or borrower and giver. The dealing may be money or money's worth. In this context, Ss.138 to 142, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, comes to play. Before dishonoured cheque goes to court, it needs to satisfy several preconditions. One is to issue demand notice narrating dishonour.

"Section 138(b) says- The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 15 days of the receipt of information by him from die bank regarding die return of die cheque as unpaid".

So, the payee takes the matter with lawyer. There incurs bank charges, notice charge, postage and travelling and other expenses to the payee. Money is always active and presumes to be earning profit, but in different names. In dealings of goods, if is profit; in service it is fees or salary or wages as the case may be and in money dealings, it is interest. Cheque means money. So, in cheque transaction interest involves.

Interest Act, 1978, Act, 14 of 1978, guarantees interest. S.3(1) of the Interest Act says,

"In any proceedings for die recovery of any debt or damages or in any proceedings in which a claim for interest in respect of any debt or damage already paid is made, the court may, if it thinks fit, allow interest to the person entitled to the debt or damages or to the person amking such claim as the case may be at the rate not exceeding the current rate of interest, for the whole part of die following period, that is to say (a) if die proceedings relate to a debt payable by virtue of a written instrument at a certain time, then from die date when die debt is payable to the date of institution of die proceedings".

This is all about dishounour of cheque. The drawer is solely responsible for this situation. In the instant context, the payee takes all the trouble. If section 138(b) reads in between the lines it means the amount on the face of the instrument. If the same matter agitates in the Civil Court, the payee gests interest and expense. Therefore, the Parliament intends to include, interest and expense with the expression "MAKE A DEMAND FOR PAYMENT OF THE SAID AMOUNT OF MONEY BY GIVING A NOTICE IN WRITING" under S.138(b), Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Art of Advocacy and Professional Management *

(By T.P. Kelu Nambiar, B.A.M.L.)

“Have you seen God”, was the question raised by Narendra (who later became Swami Vivekanada) when he met Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, to which the reply was: "If you take efforts, I shall try to help you." The message of Sri Ramakrishna was, "search for God." Refraining Narendra's question, if you ask me : "Have you seen Hortensius", I would venture the same reply: "If you take efforts, I shall try to help you." (Mark, Hortensius, according to Cicero, was the greatest of advocates).

Today is the day of great expectations for you. Today is the day on which you are expected to know the rise and fall of the legal profession.

I am delivering a carefully drawn up script. It is in the direction of an "Operation Save Profession." My views may be considered ponderous, coming as they are from a person who has already seen more than seventy summers, of which about forty-five are as a lawyer; and who has been witness to the good, bad and ugly side of the profession, in his capacity as a young lawyer, a Senior Advocate and the Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Kerala for about nineteen years now. I have witnessed the glorious past. I do not know whether I would be able to see an exciting future. The trailer of events to follow is not encouraging. The script of the profession's reversion seems to have been written. The bottom line is, the profession is losing its nobility. The profession seems to be moving towards Zero-sum-game. I may not be looked upon as a doomsayer.

Who is to be blamed for the profession's shame, is a difficult question to answer. Nobody bats an eye on the sad state of affairs. Nobody seems to try to reset the profession, though the allegations against the profession are flying thick and fast.

Now, without trying to counter controversy with controversy, let us try to resolve the issue. The winners of tomorrow will be those who consolidate today. The higher you aim, the higher you reach. I want to convey certain message to you via this address, casting aside the inquisitorial hectoring of the profession's present position. In the process I may venture certain Confidence Building Measures. If you follow the points, they may help you to succeed now, though there is no guarantee of its durability.

Legal profession today can be compared to a withering wife, after her husband's death; here; after the death of advocacy. Advocacy is the life-line of the legal profession.-For effective advocacy, I believe, a lawyer should be comfortable in the English language. Therefore, make a strong pitch for the study of English. Try to make your mind your dictionary in English. I had occasion to refer to this aspect in the Pre-enrolment lecture delivered by me in March 1992 under the joint auspices of the Bar Council of Kerala and the Indian Law Institute. Kindly permit me to quote me, though, of course, I have obtained my own permission :

"I should draw your attention to an important factor which goes in the making of a good lawyer, that is language. Scott said; "A lawyer without history or literature is a mechanic, a mere working mason; if he possesses some knowledge of these, he may venture to call himself an architect." Therefore try to bean 'architect' lawyer, without remaining a mere 'mason' lawyer. On this aspect, I commend the views of Glanvilie Williams on general reading by lawyers. The learned Professor asks lawyers to read Shakespeare, Dickens, Henry Fielding, Thackaray, Samuel Warren, Galsworthy, Sir Waller Scott, R.L. Stevenson, Trollope, Emily Bronte, George Eiot and H.C. Leon, who wrote under the pen-name Henry Cecil. There are a number of legal references in Shakespeare and this has given rise to a theory that he was a lawyer. Charles Dickens started life as a lawyer's clerk and court reporter, and most of his novels contain legal characters or legal references. Henry Fielding was a lawyer and later a London Magistrate. Thackeray, Samuel Warren, Sir Walter Scott, R.L. Stevenson and Henry Cecil were all lawyers. Their famous works are prolific in legal allusion, combined with literary excellence. Apart from legal literature, a lawyer would be greatly benefited by reading pure literature, literary works of famous authors like Mathew Arnold, William Hazlitt, Oscar Wilde, G.K. Chestarton, W.B. Yeats, Edmund Burke and Dr. Johnson. Lord Denning said: "To succeed in the profession of law, you must seek to cultivate command of language............Words are the lawyers' tools of trade..........As a pianist practices the piano, so the lawyer should practice the use of words in writing and by word of mouth."

Incidentally, let me venture the view that apprentices-at-law are unborn lawyers; they should be taken care of, as it is done in the case of unborn children. And, one year training prescribed by (lie Bar Council is a pre-qualification for eligibility to be lawyer. Therefore, they should try to secure a higher score in the venture.

I should think I have not yet begun the subject of the address. Let me begin now, and that with the supplication or invocation, that is the Preamble to Chapter II of the Bar Council of India Rules, which is the discipline of the profession :

"An advocate shall, at all limes, comport himself in a manner befitting h is status as an officer of the Court, a privileged member of the community, and a gentlemen, bearing in mind that what may be lawful and moral for a person who is not a member of the Bar, or for a member of die Bar in his non-professional capacity, may still be improper for an advocate."

This guideline is of tremendous validity, especially to a beginner in the profession; and if you adhere to this guideline, and remain absorbed in the present, you will have no past regrets and future fears. You may sometimes feel defeated. Reconciliation with defeats may seem impossible but. it is inevitable. Initial defeat does not preclude ultimate success, for such defeat is unlike the terminal illness of an old man. A strong mind can control the situation. Never mind perverse coincidences.

The sovereign method to reach God, is devotion; and that itself, that is, devotion to the profession, is the efficacious method to reach the pinnacle of the legal profession. The time devoted to the profession is time well spent. And your great unspoken ambition should be to be Number One in the profession. And, in this profession, everyone could be Number One as there is no reservation for the position. Enjoy me feeling or utter dedicating to the profession. Intense concentration gives rise to inspiration which is called pure devotion to professional duty; from it arises the blaze of dedication and sense of responsibility, which every lawyer should have. Be pure perfection as a lawyer, remembering, man's prized possession is his character; and a tarnished image is worse than death. Hard work is the summary of the legal profession. "Let not your attachment be for inaction."

Feel comfortable with your profession. Lawyers can get into trouble just because they are lawyers. Try to acquire the wisdom of the wise and the splendour of the splendid. The body-mind complex is a wonderful instrument. Separate the advocates from the lawyers.

Confucius once said: "You cannot see anything, if you learn but not think, and it is dangerous to think without learning." Therefore study your brief thoroughly and argue. Some advocates fumble generously at die Bar. Reason : lack of study and preparation of the brief. Such persons remain only as ad hoc lawyers. Be thorough with every aspect of the case, apposite or opposite. Is it not said that it is better to retain a comb even if your head has only scarce hair-growth on it. You should start moving and performing, not merely surviving. Play well in the Court and try to net every (good) point you have. Try to understand the locus of the problem. First, tame your mind, as an untamed mind is dangerous to advocacy. A swimming pool is a sport for one who knows swimming; but for one who does not, it becomes a death-trap.

Your arguments should not be long on facts but short on matter. If you fail to measure time when you argue, your argument is apt to be measureless, also, with no result. Try to stump your opponent with good deliveries. Project yourself by performing better than your opponent, just as you could shorten a line drawn without erasing it, by drawing a bigger line by its side so as to make the original line look smaller. Take time to process your submissions. Do not argue in 'sweaty hate". Argue, galloping thoughts, gradually; provide clarity to the confused. Try to get from the judge undivided attention to you.

The judge, sometimes compelled to sit in suffering silence, ultimately, is to deal with the arguments as a tale of two cases, though only one case is argued by opposing counsel. You should try to hijack the arguments of the opponent. Try, of course, to protect yourself; but not to insult your adversary. Upgrade your relationship with your brethren at the Bar. Respect seniors in the profession. Senior advocates remain a powerful presence at the Bar. You must have the admirable gift for not being provoked. Strive to see the good side of the profession; and, never the other side. Realise the importance of being "Advocate Mr. So-and-so." By protracted discipline, you can achieve anything. Keep in mind the difference between pure steadfastness and sheer stubbornness when you argue. Be steadfast, never stubborn. Be "passionately devoted" to the defence of your client, as John Mortimer QC said. You may hiss, but not bite, like the proverbial snake. To be a great lawyer, you need not look dangerous or fearsome to your opponent. Sing your contentions with head and soul. Try to be a "primal person" in the profession. Behold, and a man of amazing agility; but remember that you cannot equate contempt with courage or insults with independence. Your Original constituency should be the Court. To culture your profession, you should study well; and try to be dignified. Make a bold assertion of your professional duty. Use your faculties of speech, vision, taste and listening to the best of advantage. Jeremy Bentham said : "What the non-advocate is hanged for, the advocate is paid for, and admired." Your effort should not be only to pull the rug from under the feet of the opposing counsel, but to fulfill your duties and obligations to your client and the Court. Do not interrupt either the Court or the opposing counsel.

Interruption is a double-edged weapon. It can be answered only by interruption. And, interruption, is not answering. Do not be dejected for not obtaining centum in all your arguments or briefs. An advocate is paid to argue the point, not to decide it, as David Pannick said.

I should think, today one becomes a lawyer all-on-a-sudden. Our tribe is increasing like baby-boomers. Juniors do not learn under seniors. It is not enough that you come into die profession with an impressive inheritance. Too much will not come too early for a young lawyer. (I take pride in declaring that I have emerged from the shadow of my senior). The difference in years of practice between a senior and a junior, these days, is only a few months. There is no attempt to study the judge. A lawyer has to study the judge as much as, or more than, he studies his brief. A lawyer should try to capture the mood of the Court. Reap your reward by careful advocacy. An ignorant, arrogant and boisterous lawyer is an insult to the profession; and he would find his place in Davy Jones's locker only. Remember, there are sure cases, (sure to succeed or sure to lose), border-line cases and predictably unpredictable cases. Keep in mind the motto: "No ego, no anger, no malice, no greed, no jealousy."

It is said, forbearance can be learnt from a donkey; foresight from an ant; determination from a spider; fidelity from a dog; the virtue of monogamy from birds; and jealousy from lawyers. You should try to prove that the last is not true, by shedding the green-eyed monster. Bear and conquer by patience. Herbert Spencer was probably having lawyers in mind when he coined the expression "survival of the fittest." Do not be disheartened. So long as the adage that "one who is his own lawyer has a fool for his client" is remembered, lawyers would continue to function and exist.

You should be excessively intolerant of slipshod work and irritatingly insistent of pursuing excellence even in tasks which hardly demand it. Maintain a smooth record of consistency in the profession.

An advocate is an officer of court, not a mere mouth-piece of the client; his loyalty is to the law. Do not allow your morale to sag.

If you play your professional game well and carefully, your dice will hit only the ladder, not the snake at all. Be a law-eater advocate. You should culture the profession of law by studying well and trying to be dignified. Avoid unsound or perverse submissions; and thus maintain your riding weight. Try to be a man tuned to the ethics and culture of the law. Emerge as a hero, not a villain.

Do not indulge in competitive servility and sychophancy. A judge's sound is no music. A judge is not a lawyer's care-taker. Recently we perceive the tendency of a built-in institutional antagonism between the Bench and the Bar. The difference between the Bench and the Bar seems to be that between the jailor and the prisoner, though they are under the same roof. The Bench should not be the tormentor of the Bar, or vice versa. The Bench and the Bar should sign a CTBT, I mean, Comprehensive Tussle Ban Treaty.

A lawyer should be an adept in non-legal subjects also. This was indicated by H.D.C. Pepler in "The Devil's Devices." I would like to read Pepler :

                                       "The law the lawyers know about

                                       Is property and land;

                                       But why the leaves are on the trees,

                                       And why the waves disturb the seas,

                                       Why honey is the food of bees,

                                       Why horses have such tender knees,

                                       Why winters come when rivers freeze,

                                       Why Faith is more than what one sees,

                                       And hope survives (lie worst disease,

                                       And Charity is more than these,

                                       They do not understand."

I feel in profound sense that an Advocate should be moulded to perfection; and should be profoundly interested in the upgradation and purity of the profession; and should not abuse the confidence reposed in him by his client.

The legal profession has inherited the highest tradition; it is not, therefore, permissible to follow the lowest professional ethics. The profession is one which can conserve without plundering and create without destroying. The members of the profession must set an example of conduct worthy of emulation. Some lawyers, I regret to say, seem to forget the profession, which is a public profession, and remember only the practice thereof. As observed by Mr. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar (AIR 1975 SC 2092), if pathological cases of member misbehaviour occur, the reputation and credibility of the Bar suffer a mayhem. The learned judge observed :

"The Bar is not a private guild, like that of 'barbers, butchers and candlestickmakers' but, by bold contrast, a public institution committed to public justice and pro bono public service. The grant of a monopoly licence to practise law is based on three assumptions: (1) There is a society useful function for the lawyer to perform; (2) the lawyer is a professional person who will perform that function; and (3) his performance as a professional person is regulated by himself and more formally, by the profession as a whole. The central function that the legal profession must perform is nothing less than the administration of justice."

An Advocate practising the law is under a triple obligation, an obligation to his clients to be faithful to them unto the last, an obligation to the profession not to besmirch its name, or injure its credit by anything done by him, and an obligation to the court to be and to remain a dependable part of the machinery through which justice is administered. The profession cannot afford to have a member who fails in keeping to the required standard of conduct. Rules of the profession, verily, are written for lawyers, unlike ghost stories, which are, certainly, not written for ghosts. Adhere to the rifles, and make a mark in the profession, by putting a stamp of great name on everything you do and achieve, so that your name will score fame, as Homer achieved fame by authoring the Iliad. And remember what Aldous Huxley said : "The author of the Ilaid is either Homer or, if not Homer, somebody else of the same name." So retain your sure name.

An Advocate has a duty to execute the business entrusted to him with a reasonable degree of care, skill and dispatch. An Advocate devotes himself to the interests of another at the peril of himself. Vicarious action tempts a man too far from himself. An Advocate should do for others what he is not willing to do for himself. His loyalty is to his client. He has no other master.

Another important command of the profession is that an Advocate shall not advertise himself. Rule 36 in Chapter II of the Bar Council of India Rules lays down that an Advocate shall not solicit work or advertise either directly or indirectly, whether by circulars, advertisements, touts or personal communications. A Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court, comprising Sulaiman, C.J., Thorn and Harris JJ. in In re, (Thirteen) Advocates, Allahabad (reported in AIR 1934 Allahabad 1067), has observed :

"It is a well recognised Rule of etiquette in the legal profession that no attempt should be made to advertise oneself directly or indirectly. Such a course of action tends to lower the dignity of the honourable profession and is undoubtedly akin to touting ............ Advertisements of all forms are considered to be highly improper."

Yet another important aspect is that an advocate should be very careful with his client's money in his hands. He should never feel rich with his client's money. A man's treatment of money is the most decisive test of his character. Put not your trust in money but put your money in trust. It is good to have money and the things that money can buy, but it is good, too, to check up once in a while and make sure that you haven't lost the things that money cannot buy. You cannot hire your client's money. You should never be a money-grubber. Money, certainly, is fortune; but, definitely brings misfortune. I am telling you what you should know, not only what you should hear.

I should advise you to make a fixed deposit of honesty in the profession. Your effort, should be to set up shop at the summit of the profession.

At the end of the day, I should think that the legal profession in a great, glorious, noble profession. And, if there is a rebirth for me, and if I am asked what type of birth I would like to take next, by answer would be; T wish to be reborn a lawyer only.'

I wish to be a lawyer, and little else besides. This should be the motto of a true lawyer.

I should be grateful to the tenacious tolerance of the listening throng.

Thank you, and wish you well, and a formidable future. I also thank the Bar Council of Kerala, the provider of this splendid and glorious opportunity.

Thank you all.

___________________________________________________________________

Footnote:

(Key-note Address delivered by T.P. Kelu Nambiar, as Chief Guest on the occasion of the enrolment of Advocates, on 28-12-1998, at the Bar Council of Kerala Hall).

On Watergate and Monicagate

(By T.G. John, Advocate, Thrissur)

1972 - During the Presidential Campaign of Richard Nixon, a group of election agents employed by the Re-election Organisation of the President, were caught breaking into the Democratic Party Headquarters in the Watergate Building, Washington D.C. The consequent political scandal was exacerbated by attempts to conceal the facts that Senior Whitehouse Officials had approved the burglary and this oblique situation eventually forced the resignation of President Nixon to escape impeachment.

1995- Monica Lewinsky, one November night walked into the Oval Office of President Clinton with a Pizza. It could have been any one of the other interns. Monica only offered a different type of topping. A woman who is aware of what she can arouse in a man has little difficulty in sending the right signals. A predatory male can usually sniff it in the air. The response is their private affair. But it is surprising that when sex scandals are attached to VIPs they assume such proportions of global publicity that even wars do not get.

The most powerful man in the world President Bill Clinton, was recently grilled for six hours by the Lawyers of Paula Jones, who had worked in the office years ago when he was the Governor of Arkansas State. The charge is that she was invited to a hotel room by Clinton and propositioned. Paula's 'sense of female dignity' suddenly woke up after Clinton became the President! In the wake of that another woman, Monica, too has made allegations that she was given a job so that she should not speak about her affair with Clinton. And then the Kenneth Star drama has followed:

The American President would not have done much for his country but the entertainment he is providing for the people of America and the world by subjecting himself to the ordeal makes Americans feel that they have got their money's worth in electing Clinton.

Sometime ago there was the sensational case of the noted Base Ball player - O.J. Simpson - who was sued for raping a woman admirer of his. The question looms large why these women readily go to the hotel rooms when they are invited? What else did they expect the men to do to them in the hotel room? Making allegations against VIPs might be giving them the psychological satisfaction of becoming famous. Paula Jones or Monica Lewinsky or for that matter any of the interns would not have achieved this stardom i f they had not happily and blushingly revealed that they had been propositioned by the U.S. President. It is true and welcoming that in the system of American democracy even the President is not immune from the judicial process. But why some of these ladies who were willing participants are immune from the same judicial process? Why in spite of their candid confession they are allowed to roam in society as social butterflies.

We have yet to watch and see the grand 'finale' of the Kenstar Drama - whether it will have two climaxes - the tragic one of Clinton leaving the White House in tears clasping Hillary to amuse the Gulf and Asian Countries, and the other happy climax of Clinton remaining in the White House till 2000 AD to amuse the European countries.

Stop Press

(T.G. John, Advocate, Trichur)

On Friday, 13th of March 1914, Henriette Caillaux, 36 years old second wife of the French Finance Minister, M. Joseph Caillaux swept into the office of the Paris newspaper 'Le Figaro' and shot dead its Chief Columnist, Gaston Calmette. For 2 months 138 articles and cartoons deriding Caillaux had appeared in 'Le Figaro' but when Calmette published a letter Caillaux had written in 1901, to his first wife ('I have crushed the income tax bill while appearing to defend it, thereby pleasing the centre and right, without too much upsetting the left.....'), the Finance Minister and his wife were frantic knowing that the first Madame Caillaux also possessed copies of their own premarital correspondence. In 1909, during a separation from his mistress (who became in 1911, the second Madame Caillaux) the Finance Minister had written her letters winch were politically and amorously indiscreet. These letters had somehow fallen into the hands of his first wife. The Finance Minister and his wife visualised passages from these letters also appearing in the newspaper because it was clear Calmatte was in possession of these letters.

Realising the inflammatory nature, Henriette sought legal advice and got the information that in France then there was no law to protect individuals against newspaper libels. She left a note for her husband and called at a gunsmith's, where she tested weapons in the firm's shooting gallery. Soon afterwards, she fired four bullets at Calmette in his office and he died in hospital that night.

Monseur Caillaux, the Finance Minister handed in his resignation, an English newspaper stated that the wife of a British Cabinet Minister would never behave in such a way and 'Le Figaro' printed a list of people who deplored the killing!

Henriette Caillaux was tried the following July: She pleaded great provocation and said the gun had gone off accidentally. The jury found her not guilty of murder. Caillaux resumed his political life although after the First World War, he was imprisoned for correspondence with the enemy. Henriette Caillaux died in 1943.

This Happened in a Family Court

(T.G. John, Advocate, Trichur)

'Marriages are made in heaven; but divorces are certainly made on earth.

The following is the strange story of Alice Melis from Cagliari, Sardinia.

Alice Melis ruled the roost, if ever a woman did. Every time her husband went out, she put a padlock on him, right where a man's pride is hurt most! And every night when timed Livio Melis, her husband, came home, he had to strip and stand while she unlocked him like a slave.

Sad little Livio had no idea what he was letting himself in for when he married pretty Alice. Alice's trouble was that she was madly jealous. She told friends shortly after the wedding that she was sure Livio was having an 'affair'. "But I will find a way to keep him for myself she swore.

Using her practical mind and exploiting Livio's gullible character, she double stitched a leather pouch to a belt and fastened a padlock to the buckle. Then she brandished her invention and challenged Livio "If you really love me and want to prove your faithfulness, you will wear this". Just to humour her, Livio consented. From then on the chastity belt was used every time he went to work or strolled out to the local cafe.

"I gave h because I was fed up with the scenes she made each day". Livio told a shocked domestic court-ten years later! "I, did not realise it would become a habit."

Domineering Alice treated him worse than a dog. The humiliation of wearing the belt tore his nerves to shreds. His once thriving pottery business collapsed and in the end he had to sell his shop. But while Livio drifted into hawking caged brids on street corners to eke out a miserable living. Alice prospered. She started embroidering table cloths, opened a souvenir shop and finally threw her husband out on the street.

"I was glad to go" timid Livio told the Court when they examined Alice's petition for separation. Her reasons: extreme mental cruelty and physical maltreatment. Ten years of living in a private hell were expressed in a few sentences by Livio "For the past two years we were living like brother and sister! It was she who betrayed me with other men and then told about it while unlocking the chastity belt. She would laugh and jeer at me in public. She called me a spineless creature and threw pots and pans at me."

Neighbours gave evidence that Alice had boasted of how she beat Livio to keep him under control. Dismissing the cruelty charges against Livio the Judge said 'The key to the issue is that belt. Any man who would suffer such indignity for so long would hardly be cruel to his wife!! He also granted a separation and ordered Alice to pay the costs.

The chastity belt was seized and sent to the Police museum. Livio was a free man at last, but as Alice returned to her shop and embroidery she remained as unrepentant as ever.

"I would do it again" she vowed the men I own, I own lock, stock and barrel!"

*                 *           *           *           *           *           *

Under the insidious onslaughts of modern permissiveness, family realities are recognised more liberally by courts of law in Great Britain. There is even a suggestion to change one hundred years' old title of Divorce Court to "The Family Division". In bygone years respectability was all. Victorian Judges solemnly ruled that it was manslaughter and not murder if a man killed his wife upon finding her in the act of adultery - but that it remained murder if he found his fiancee or mistress in the same happy position. Now-a-days such tiresome distinctions have disappeared from the law. In this post-Wolfenden age, it would probably be held manslaughter and not murder if a homosexual found his "friend" in bed with another man.

Courts in Great Britain have retreated so far from sound old principles of family life that there is no longer even a judicial consensus that a man is the head of his house. Far from it. Granting both a Surrey antique dealer and his wife joint divorce-decrees on the ground of respective cruelty to each other in October 1970, Mr. Justice Ormrod commented that the husband had wanted to be "that most unlikely thing - the master in his own house." I do not know that there ever was such a person" said the learned Judge who is himself .married. "I suppose once upon a time there was, but it seems to be today, when these feelings arise a man, particularly a middle-aged man, it leads to a succession of fight wars and battles between man and wife."

The police too can sometimes be remarkably appreciative of 'family realities'. As in the incident early this year, somewhere in England, when an escaping thief hotly pursued by two women, hopped in a cab and told the driver to drive like fury as his wife and mother-in-law were after him! Sympathetically, the cab driver sped away - only to be stopped later at a road block when his passenger was led away by the police. The man was a bank robber and the two women had been clerks trying to stop him! Yet the cab driver had little difficulty in persuading the police that he had genuinely believed his customers' story. After all what could have been more natural! The cab driver, the policeman - they had all wives and mother-in-laws.

The truth is that the Courts are for more earthly and pragmatic about family problems than most peoples realised. In particular, they are much less bourgeois - morality minded than many of our so-called ‘trendy' progressives.