THE APPEAL COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 14038, 20 April 1909, Page 6

THE APPEAL COURT.

[Pee United Press' Association.] WELLINGTON. April 20. In the case of Poingdestre v. Poingdestre application was made to dispense with personal service upon a respondent in a divorce suit who was absent from the Dominion, and whose whereabouts were unknown. The petitioner was married at the Chatham Islands, and subsequently resided in New Zealand. In 1696 the respondent left, telling his wife that he was going to settle in America. He corresponded with his wife up till 1898, but from that time the petitioner heard no word from him. The Co ml unanimously gave judgment, holding that the Legislature, by section 21 subsection 3 of the Divorce Act, 1908, had provided for the case in enacting that where a wife in New Zealand was deserted by a husband who left the Dominion she retained her New Zealand domicil© for the purpose of bringing a suit for divorce. The Court held that such provision was within the power given to the New Zealand Parliament by the Constitution Act to pass laws for the peace, order, and good government of the country, and was therefore not ultra vires. Whether the decree granted by our Court would be effective outside the Dominion was another matter, with which the Court were not concerned. Personal service was dispensed with, and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court to give directions as to substituted service.