NEW ZEALAND CO-RESPONDENT.

Auckland Star, Volume XL, Issue 50, 27 February 1909, Page 15

NEW ZEALAND CO-RESPOND-ENT.

A QUESTION OF DOMICILE;., . (From Our Special Correspondent.) LONDON, January IBth. In the Divorce Court, last Monday, Jan. 11th Mr. Jnstice*Barnee heard an application by the co-respondent In J'Anson v. J'Anson and Oldbury, who asked that he should be dismissed from the suit, on the ground that being a domiciled New Zealander the Court had no jurisdiction over him. For the co-respondent, Mr. Barnard, K.C., said that when the petition was filed In September, leoT, it contained a general charge of adultery and one of adultery In New Zealand In 1906. Subsequently, however, toy way of particulars a charge of adultery in England in 1903 was added. The learned counsel read aflJdavits by the corespondent, by his solicitor, and by another gentleman to the effect that In September, 1805, In consequence of disagreements with his wife and family over business and financial matters, Mr. Oldbury disposed of his business to his son (Arthur, and executed deeds of gift disposing of all his property and retaining only his personal effects and cas*. Under medical advice he determined fb seek a warmer climate, and on September 9, 1905, proceeded to New Zealand, where he had permanently settled and acquired landed property of considerable valne, and became an elector for the district of Kalapol, and a voting ratepayer of the Avonroad district. The co-respondent further stated that he had not left England In order to place himself beyond the Jurisdiction of the Court. The petitioner had also mafle an affidavit which showed that the co-respondent was, at the date when he left Isngland, Mayor of Wedneebury, and alderman of the town, council, a member of tie Staffordshire County Council, and a Justice of the peace. He had"not resigned any of these offices, and it was stated In the local Press that he had gone to South Africa until May, 19CW, combining business with, pleasure. He had since forfeited, through, his absence, his various offices, but still remained a justice of the peace for the borongh of Wednesoury, and was on the rota ot acting Justices for 1909. . The President: Is it disputed that the corespondent Is domiciled in New Zealand? Mr Framptou, for the petitioner: We say he has not bona fide changed his domicile, and I submit that there Is no evidence to Justify the Court in dismissing Mr. Oldbury from the suit. The adultery commenced in 11)03, and in February, 1906, the respondent left her husband, and In August left England for New Zealand, being followed the next month by the eo-reepondent, who had since lived with her in New Zealand. The test of this change of domicile was to apply it to a hypothetical suit brought by the corespondent's wife against him for divorce. Would the husband be allowed for one moment to get a change of domicile to defeat his wife's petition by alleging that «t the sge of 6S he had renoiinced his domicile of origin for the benefit of his health? It was obvious that he had only gone abroad to avoid the consequences of hie conduct. The President: Docs this question of Jurisdiction depend upon domicile? Th's Iβ not the case of a foreigner, but of a man who, until he was 65 years of age, was a domiciled Englishman, nnd subject to the Jurisdiction of this Court. Mr. Barnard: I know of no reported casa much a foreigner ac if his domicile ot origin wae In New Zealand. The President: Supposing a man commits adultery and deserts his wife, can he abandon his domicile of origin in order to prevent her obtaining relief against him? Mr. aßrnard: I know of no reported case In which s change of domicile was proved in such circumstances. If an order was made in this Court against the co-respondent. I am very much afraid it may be enforced against him in New Zealand. The President: And a very good thing, too. (Laughter.) I am not going, to decide now whether domicile is the test of Jurisdiction In this class of case or not, as thut question has not now been argued. But I am quite satisfied that there has not been a bona fide change of domicile by the co-res-pondent, and I accordingly refuse his application to be dismissed from the suit, with costs.