FULL COURT.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 486, 20 April 1909, Page 9

FULL COURT.

< THE DIVORCE LAW. ' QUESTION OF JURISDICTION. , A sitting or tho Full Court was held yesterday..,toxonsider "a motifi'n' for ' directions as' to servico in the case of Ellon Blako Poingdestre. (petitioner) . versus EdwardGrant l J oingdc6tro (respondent)'. . ; . On bohalt of petitioner, Mr, .Treadwell, of >'anganui, said • tho question- nroso.out: of certain, proceedings started at. Wanganui for divorco. For-some-years tho whereabouts of, respondent .had' not been knowny and it was presumed that ho .-had resided . outside-.the Dominion., ;When;tho.-application■ for dircc-■ !-tions',as-.to;servibe_was /brought, Mr. .Justice. •Chapman' thought.it.advisable that,the.qucs-. tion of jurisdiction nv such a casts should; bo; decided. by the Full Court. The facts as 'dis- : closed : by. tho,, affidavits ;'showed:'that 'for' six yeah, prior;to ihe -marriage.'of tlie' parties,, which tbok place at t-ho.Chatham'.'lslands/on .-April 23, 1889, respondent resided in tho Dominion. 1 During tho first Six months after maiTiage. thf.;, parties resided'.,in; the Chatham Islands; then they lived, at Lytitclton ; fcr two ; years, ..and subsequently .for five years- in: •Wellington... .One child was born of tho .marriagc.^'.-Ih; ; 1896 resj>qridont,' ,w'as':bbrn in Jorsoy, left for Seattle'with-tho full knowicdqjo and .consent of petitioner. - Her; affi-, davit. showed that when respondent left she thought ho intended to return; -The parties corresponded regularly up 'to March,' 1898, •when respondent wroto'-stating that.he was leaving for Newcastle. ' • Dunne the whole time , since'.the contraction cf the marriage petitioner, had resided in tho Dominion. • At -this . stage Mr.; Justice ■ Williams' observed that■-wherever, the: husband wont, so long as ho corresponded with hia wife and they were on good terms, ho would Hot be presumed to have, abandoned the domicile which he acquired in Nev/ : Zealand.: Could a .man when lie was beginning a period ofnlesertion change his _domicilo' and so.-prevent;his y,'ife. from, having "her remedy ?, If he-'was-notvdomioiled iri'-'tlio -Dominion ; atvthe.'tirne;'the:;d€sertioh. bepan it would bo a different thing •' ■ < ■ Replying to Mr. Justice :Edwards, - counsel stated that .;.it;. ;wa's ,\Coni»hdei ; '!that ; the'-,de-sertion: commenced when- tho' correspftndenco ce'iscd : It was submitted as follows by counsel - . (1) That at the time of desertion respondent wafc domiciled in Now Zealand, and-if. thnt. were 'so-potitionef would,'ho; urged, )>e', entitled to have - her proceedings' heard ; (2) ■ that the Court had .-junsdiction to entertain- proceed-. l'ings"fof;di3'soliitibn of .marriage "On ;thevpeti-f tion of a wife who resided miNew Zealand,: rbut,who,;on account of her husband's"change |of -, domicilej'--.wA-s : ;jio'i l6n£;er' domiciled . here: i.and (3); that the -Divorco-Act. 1908/:cro.iM what might be termed a matrimonial;ddmieilo in'.casM''Of 'desertion of the 'Argument until-10.30 this morning-. : ' . •'