DIVORCE QUESTION

Evening Post, Volume CXXV, Issue 83, 8 April 1938, Page 5

DIVORCE QUESTION

POWERS OF COURTS

NEW ZEALANDERS ABROAD

(By, Telegraph—Press Association.)

AUCKLAND, April 7,

Wide, questions Of the jurisdiction of New Zealand Coutts over New Zealanders resident in foreign territory were raised during the hearing of an undefended divorce suit. The case was one in which Ellen Doris Manson, for whom Mr. Finlay appeared, sought divorce from Norman Manson on the ground of his failure to comply with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The case • had already been partly heard and adjourned for the prodnction of proof that the respondent -was domiciled in New Zealand at the time of the issue ; of proceedings.. ' -y; '-■' Mr. - Finlay: produced ;an affidavit from the respondent stating that he is at present Professor of Ophthalmology at Bagdad University, under engagement there until November, 1940. He intended to return to New Zealand at the expiry of his term and eventually to settle in this country. Mr. Justice Fair said he would be very happy if he could now pronounce k decree in this case, which had had a long and rather troublesome career, but another matter had cropped up. That was the jurisdiction of New Zealand Courts administering enactments of a subordinate legislature,-to issue commands to persons outside the territorial limits of frew Zealand. There was no doubt the Court could make an order effective in New Zealand, even though the defendant was .outside New Zealand, but to issue a command to a person who was outside New Zealand was a different matter. He was now, considering that question.

Mr. Finlay said he had not seen anything to suggest that the law as laid down in Halsbury was not applicable to New Zealand. '■■/

His Honour said that was in England and the Imperial Parliament could legislate with regard to anything in any part of the world. There was, however, a well-known case in which it was held that New Zealand Courts could not punish a New Zealander for bigamy committed outside New Zealand. ' .

Mr. Finlay said he realised that criminal jurisdiction must extend to the place where the crime was committed, but he could not conceive that the New Zealand Parliament was subordinate in the sense that it could not legislate to control actions of its own nationals anywhere. In the matter of status, his Honour said, there were no New Zealand nationals but only British subjects. The New Zealand Legislature drew its power straight from an Act of the Imperial Parliament. Mr. Finlay said that even before the Statute of Westminster New Zealand was given (What might be called Imperial rights,' entirely' independent of the British Parliament, and almost unrestricted. . y " His Honour said they were restricted on criminal matters quite clearly, and it had been .held that they were restricted even in the matter of enforcement of an Arbitration Court award outside the three-mile limit. His Honour said he gladly accepted Mr. Finlay's offer to submit written argument on the subject.