ANGLO-COLONIAL NOTES.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXV, Issue 9447, 23 June 1891, Page 2

ANGLO-COLONIAL NOTES.

London, May v l. THE LAW AND THE LADY. A technical case of considerable interest to lawyers on both sides of the world came before Mr Justice Jenne on Friday last, in th° _ Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division. It was a motion for variation of marriage settlement by Miss Mary Moore, who some years ago obtained a decree of nullity of marriage with Mr Bull in the Wellington (New Zealand) Courts. The motion, for which there was admittedly no precedent, raised a question upon which the learned Judge pronounced a judgment of considerable importance. Mr Sim, who appeared for Miss Moore, saidthatas regarded the validity of the nullity decree there was no question, because at the time of the institution of the suit, and when the decree was pronounced. Miss Moore and the respondent were domiciled in New Zealand. The motion had regard to the marriage settlement which was drawn in England on Dec. 15, 1883. The marriage was celebrated here in 1884. The property, the subject of the settlement, was brought ia entirely by Miss Moore. No portion had belonged to the respondent. It was in England, the trustees were in England, and so were the petitioner and the respondent. Under the settlement, Miss Moore had only a life interest in the property, and it was therefore desirable the settlement should be altered; but it was doubtful whether the lady could obtain any relief in that way if this Court could not lend its aid, because she had lost her domicile in New Zealand. Evdhif that did not bar her in the Wellington Court, there would be a great difficulty arising from the distance of New Zealand from England, and the consequent expense of further proceedings there. The learned counsel said that he felt bound to say that be did not think there was any authority for the motion before his Lordship, which was one for a variation of a marriage settlement, following a decree pronounced by a. foreign Court, hut on the other hand he did not think there was any against it. Mr Sim then quoted in support of his case, and, after argument, Mr Justice Jeuno gave judgment. Ho observed that the case : was a novel one. The applicant had obtained a decree in New Zealand, which, no doubt, was a perfectly good one. On it she desired to have a variation of her marriage settlement, and she applied to the English Court to make that variation. It would seem to be desirable that her application should, if possible, be complied with, because it might not be possible for her to obtain a variation in New Zealand; but the question was whether she could obtain a variation of the settlement without instituting fresh proceedings in New Zealand. It was quite irue that our Courts gave an auxiliary sanction to the judgments of other Courts, but that was quice a different thing from founding a jurisdiction for this Court on the decree of a foreign one. The motion must, therefore, be refused. THE BASQUE ASSATE. A Lloyd’s broker, who recently disappeared, bad effected insurances on the illfated New Zealand trader Assaye with underwriters at Lloyd’s. The gentlemen who wrote the risk to the absconding broker now find that the loss which they paid to that gentleman has not been passed on to the assured on the plea that the Committee of Lloyd’s was investigating the case. The assured now claim the loss from the underwriters direct, but the latter naturally object to “fork out” a second time, and ia all probability the matter will find its way into the Law Courts. COMMERCIAL TREATIES. Answering a question put by Mr Howard Vincent in the House of Commons on Thursday last, Sir James Fergueson said that the Government was aware of the. resolution unanimously adopted by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce on April 28, 1890, to the effect that no treaties of commerce should in future be renewed or entered into which preclude preferential arrangements between the United Kingdon and the British Colonies with regard to their respective products. This view would be borne in mind in any negotiations for the renewal of expiring treaties. “THE PLUNGER.” Mr Ernest Beuzon has reappeared in London, but in somewhat different circles to those which the “poor Jubilee” once adorned. Mr Benzon seems to have fallen only slightly in his own esteem, and his manners are just as—well, shall we say, engaging, as of yore. The Plunger will talk of those two royal years of folly to his dying day. In the provinces many folk still look up to him as a “ knowing card,” &c. PERSONAL. Colonel Mapleson has, on dit, offered the Australian songstress, Madame Melba, £30,000 for two seasons of ten weeks each, in the States. According to a contemporary Madame is “ considering the proposal.” Mrs Drew, who will be well known to New Zealanders by her nom de theatre “ Madame Kata Lovell,” has obtained a decree nisi against her husband, Mr Louis James Drew, on tbe grounds of desertion and adultery. Petitioner was given the custody of the child of the marriage. The respondent is still “ living in sin ” somewhere in tbe Antipodes. Mr H. H. Champion has returned to London, despite the sinister rumours, propagated by his quondam labour confreres, to the effect that he dare not show himself here for fear of unpleasant police proceedings. He does not hesitate to declare that the Australian working men, in their great strike, were the dupes , and victims of incapable and unscrupulous leaders. He asserts that, had tbe settlement he advocated been accepted, the Colonies would have been saved an enormous loss, the Australian workmen nearly a couple of millions in wages, and the disruption of tbe federation of labour would have been prevented. THE EVICTED TENANTS* FUND, The JJSOO cabled home from Sydney in aid of the Evicted Tenants’ Fond has heartened np the Maoarthyites wonderfully. The financial difficulty is every day becoming more acute with them. Many members cannot afford to turn up as they did in the well-paid days of Parnell's rule ? and to set aside any money for assisting them, whilst the evicted tenants want is of course impossible. jackson’s reply. Mr Jackson’s “reply” is quite as lengthy, trivial and tedious as his good lady’s “ vindication,” but be writes in rather better taste. The husband’s friends advised him to let the small-minded vulgarity of Mrs Jackson’s composition speak for itself ; and keep silence. This would have been wise and strong. Unfortunately, Jackson ia neither wise nor strong. He declares most solemnly that he went to New Zealand at his wife’s urging. Several times, both before and after the marriage ceremony/he offered to stay at home if ahe wished. He did not go to New Zealand to buy land, nor did he tell his wife so. He went to take up a block that belonged to him in consequence of his services during the Maori war. Mias Hall, as she was then, always knew her lover to be a poor man. Often when they went boating together she would insist on paying, observing, “ I know you are not rich.” Jackson goes at length into the squabbles with tbe Baldwins after his return. He admits he used strong language; so did they. He, however, frequently apologised for this subsequently. As to the allegation that he treated hia wife with brutality during the siege, Jackson, metaphorically speaking, simply smiles. No one, he declares, knows the absolute falseness and absurdity of this statement better than the lady herself. Jackson winds up by saying be always loved his Emily and loves her still. Even now this indulgent and forgiving “ hubby ” offers to let bygones be bygones, and to fold to his manly bosom the sour, shrivelled and ill-tempered old maid.