DIVORCE

Dominion, Volume 16, Issue 165, 31 March 1923, Page 7

DIVORCE

DECREE NISI GRANTED A DESERTED WIFE A decree nisi, to be moved absolute after three months, was granted by the reserved judgment of Hie Honour Mr. Justice Ghapman in the Supreme Court on Thursday morning, in the suit for dissolution of marriage brought by Georgina Tyne Currie Townshend against William Austin Lakin Townshend, on the ground of desertion. Hie Honour stated: “The parties were married at Broken Hill in New South Wales in 1901. Immediately after the marriage they came to live at Wellington, New Zealand, where they resided until 1906, the respondent working somewhat irregularly. Here the only child of the marriage was born. Respondent’s father says that when respondent returned, bringing his wife he had parted with hie tools, so that the father had to set him up again. He showed a restless disposition, was improvident, and .kept a poor hqjne for his family. “In 1907 the parties left New Zealand and went to Adelaide. Respondent’s father says that this was for the health of the child, which was suffering from pneumonia and bronchitis. In his letters to hie father, which have not been preserved, he spoke of coming back. Suddenly, however, he wrote: ‘I am off with Georgina,’ and .never wrote again. Petitionee says that at Adelaide they lodged with her grandparents, where in December, 1906, respondent deserted.her. She has never since seen or heard from him.. She has ever since worked for her living, first for about six months in Adelaide, and next for some years at Broken Hill, and latterly at Sydney, where she now resides, but where she has not acquired and cannot acquire a domicile. , “It is evident that respondent did not acquire or retain a domicile in South Australia. He went there for a special purpose only, and even., if he had become domiciled there the fact of the desertion of both wife and child is itself strong evidence of renunciation. If respondent had desired to oemmunicate with his wife he might have made inquiries respecting' her through her grandparents or other Adelaide residents. These considerations make it probable that respondent retained or resumed his domicile of origin. The subsequent history is a blank, but if respondent never acquired a South Australian domicile or renounced any (he had acquired, then the description his father gives of him tends to make it improbable that he has acquired a definite domicile anywhere. There is absolutely no evidence that he has, and the rumours as to his having been Been in Melbourne merely serve slightly to confirm the father’s impressions. “I am, for these reasons, satisfied that the only real evidence points to the conclusion that the respondent has retained his domicile of origin, and that the parties are now domiciled in New Zealand. ... In a case of adultery it is obviously immaterial whoro the act was conunitted, equally so where the parties resided when it was committed. It is not even material where they were domiciled when the offence was committed, it they were domiciled in New Zealand when the suit was commenced. The same considerations must apply, to desertion and other matrimonial offences.”* '■ ■" ■ ■