JURISDICTION IN DOUBT.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 151, 29 June 1927, Page 9

JURISDICTION IN DOUBT.

UNUSUAL DIVORCE ACTION. IIOTH PARTIES IN ENGLAND. i 11\ Tflegrnph—Own Correspondent.) HAMILTON, this day. Tin- ca.-e in which Thomas Elwell, an elderly man, now in England, seeks a divorce from his wife, who is also resident in England, after being married 47 years, was mentioned before his Honor -Mr. Justice Hordman again today. When the case was before the Court yesterday, the question arose as to whether tlio Court had jurisdiction to grant divorce where the parties were not domiciled in the Dominion. Mr. D. Seymour, for the petitioner, said he now had authority to show that if the parties were at the time of the commencement of the proceedings domiciled in New Zealand the Court Lad jurisdiction to deal with it. His Honor: Are you able to prove she is domiciled here? Mr. Seymour said he could not make a definite statement that Elwell would not return to New Zealand, but when he had commenced proceedings he had been 'omiciled in New Zealand for II years, lie contended that on the authorities quoted, if it were established that when proceedings were commenced the parties were domiciled in New Zealand, it did not matter where tlio marriage was contracted, or where the parties were when the petition was heard. Were it not so ii would be possible for a husband, when served with divorce papers, to leave New Zealand and become domiciled in Australia. The New Zealand court would then have no jurisdiction.

His Honor reserved his decision