Zein-Silbercock v Zein-Silbercock (per amicus curiae)
Shaftsberry J, Mr Zein-Silbercock asks this court for a declaration that he may lawfully exercise conjugal rights as against his wife. The order is opposed by Dr. Bahm on the grounds that it would be severely deleterious to her fragile state of health. Since the day of her wedding to the applicant, Mrs Zein-Silbercock has been in a vegatative state of consciousness under the care of Dr. Bahm at his private hospital. She was rendered so by the almighty thrust of the groom as he delivered the connubial sacrament, the way it is still practised in the orthodox Lutheran church. It was said that such was the deliverance that she suffered a raptured stomach and collapsed lung and her left eyeball bursted and haemorraged into her brain and bled from her ears. When one surveys the anatomy of this man Zein-Silbercock, they are left in no doubt as to how this could have occured. I can truthfully say that he is packing at least 1 and a half midgets lengthwise and three-quarters on the girth (in the old measurement). The court was told that he had at one time earned a good living in a slaughterhouse and I believe it. It is an awesomely impressive sight to behold and I think there is nary a beast of earth or sea that could not succumb to it. But now to the point: the applicant modestly asks just for what is rightfully his. Dr Bahm does not dispute that the matrimonial wares of his patient are properly vested in the applicant for which he paid good consideration (in evidence before me is an receipt from an organisation in the Phillipines which places this beyond doubt). Rather, he argues that it would be unconscionable for the Zein-Silbercock to enforce his rights when in the circumstances it would surely lead to death by impalement and cited Cyrinus v a child for this principle. I take his point; however, equally, I cannot deny the applicant. Therefore, the court appoints the good Monsignor Con Peppas to act as proctor during the consummation and ensure that Mr. Zein-Silbercock's deliverance is reasonable and moderate in all the circumstances, and not to excavate past the appendix, as a general rule. Mons. Peppas is no stranger to these things. I make the additional order that the ritual be videotaped and returned to me so that I can satisfy myself of the propriety and lawfulness of the occasion. |
posted by Phillip @ 5:57 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
I would agree with Shaftsberry J's judgment on this matter. Indeed, I would go further and suggest that Cyrinus v a child is distinguishable on the facts. As I understand it, that case involved a friar's rights to a youth of his congregation, a "lamb of his flock" in the words of the court. The law does seek to protect children below the age of consent through the application of principles of conscience. Yet in the case at bar, it would be spurious for Mrs Zein-Silbercock to argue that she is capable of having interests independent of her husband's, especially interests that are capable of being infringed by any acts of poor conscience against her person.
I do note the court's order that a video recording be made of the supervised act of penetration. I commend Shaftsberry J's creativity in this regard, and would suggest that this approach may be applied in future cases of a similar nature, both within and without of this jurisdiction.
Quite right Thrutchwise, though at least the horrid "woman" is not, to use the Francophilic term, un cunte de sexspastic like the Godfrey twins. Demented arse-fermented bastard(s) that they (it) are (is).
Deliverance. A fine film. Peppas will be happy to oblige.
Post a Comment
<< Home