DIVORCE DOMICILE

Greymouth Evening Star, 8 July 1931, Page 10

DIVORCE DOMICILE

NEW ZEALAND ANOTHER RENO? [PEE PRESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON, July 7. In the Appeal Court in the divorce case, Worth versus Worth, Mr Leicester, after stating incidents leading to' the divorce, submitted that Mrs Worth had brought, herself within the four walls of the 1930 Statute, and was entitled to a divorce. Parliament, he said, was empowered by its Constitution Act of 1852 to make laws for the peace, order and good of New Zealand. It had been held by the Full Court of New Zealand in the

case Poingdestre v. Poingdestre in 1909, that questions of divorce and of status were questions relative to the

peace, order and good government of New Zealand. It might be that the effect of granting a divorce under this legislation, would be that the parties would still be held to be man and wife in another country; but that was no concern of the Courts of New Zealand. It was plain that the Legislature intended to override the rules of private international law, and it was also plain that it was competent to do so if it so desired. Prior to 1930, it was good law in New Zealand, as elsewhere, that a wife could not acquire a domicile .distinct from that of her husband, but this Act expressly gave her one for purposes of divorce: thereby endeavouring to remedy the scandal of a wife having Jo follow her hpsband from country to country in an effort to obtain a divorce. Merely to attack this legislation on the grounds that it might not obtain foreign recognition was irrelevant.

Mr Wiren, for the respondent, sub' mitted that there were two re.stric tions on the power of the New Zealand Parliament to legislate, viz.: —

(1) Its legislation must not be re pugnant to any Imperial legislation:

and (2) it must be for the peace, order and good government of the Dominion. The 1930 Act, he said, was not repugnant to any Imperial statute, but neither was it for the

peace, order and good government of New Zealand. The Act did not reuire that any matrimonial offence be committed in New Zealand nor did it reuire any residence on the part of the respondent; however, transitory in the Dominion. It extended, in fact, an open invitation to all the women of the world to come to New Zealand to obtain a divorce, no matter where their husbands were ‘Jomieiied. No doubt the good government of the Dominion was concerned with the women deserted hpra, but surely it had no concern with the women coming here after being deserted abroad. The New Zealand Parliament was not a Sovereign Parliament like the Imperial Parliament, but it was subordinate in that it. was limited by its written constitution, with the. results that its statutes were open to review by the Courts. The hearing was adjourned. THE LAW’S ANOMALIES.. WELLINGTON, July 8. In the Appeal Court, in the case Worth v. Worth, continuing. Mr Wiren submitted that the Dominion statute must be construed so as to conform with private international law. If it flouted such international law, it was ultra vires. The aiuXhority of the

Dominion Legislature therefore was invalid. Imperial statutes constituting

Dominion Parliaments, could not be read so as to give those Parliaments power to legislate contrary to international law. The position of a husband against whom a divorce had been granted under 1930 legislation would be that he would not be divorced under the law in ‘England. It was even doubtful if, being domiciled in England, he could marry again in New Zealand. Even if he were held to be divorced by the New Zealand Courts, he would not get rid of his wife, for she could still sue him in England for restitution of conjugal rights, or prove against his estate as his widow. It was important that a wife proceeding this legislation should know her true position. Her position was that if after obtaining a divorce she married again and went to England, she could be prosecuted there for bigamy. In addition, her second husband could go, abroad and anywhere obtain a declaration of nullity. (Proceeding.)