QUESTION OF DOMICILE

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10607, 4 June 1920, Page 10

QUESTION OF DOMICILE

SINGULAR POINT IN DIVORCE CASE. A rather singular question relating to domicile arose in the hearing of an undefended petition for divorce in Auckland. The evidence showed that tlio parties were married at Sydney, New South Wales, in July, 1910, both being native born Australians. They lived in Sydney for a year after marriage. coming to New Zealand in 1911. but in April, 1915, respondent left suddenly for Sydney. Since his departure* ho had written oneo to his wife, and then ceased to correspond. The grounds of the petition were desertion.

His Honour adjourned tho case for legal argument on the question.of domicile. Mr Skelton quoted a number of authorities, including McC’artie v. McCartie. In that case the definition “domicile of choice” was laid down, la ‘that instance the panics came to New Zealand with the fixed intention of founding a home, and it was held that tho domicile of choice destroyed the domicile of origin. Tho next point "as what her the wife when her husband had resumed his domicile of origin, had any right to apply to the Mew Zealand courts. To meet this sub-section 3 of section 21 of tho "Divorce Act was quoted. This sub-section lays down that a wife does not lose her right to ho heard in New Zealand, where the husband had deserted her and gone to a foreign country. , Subsequently Mr Justice Cooper gave a written decision stating that he was satisfied the law enabled him to take the course of grunting a decree nisi, to bo mado absolute in three months.