QUESTION OF DOMICILE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15610, 15 May 1914, Page 5

QUESTION OF DOMICILE.

POINT IN DIVORCE SUIT.

COURT'S JURISDICTION IX DOUBT.

Ax important question affecting the domicile of the parties concerned was raised in the' course of an undefended suit for divorce heard before His Honor Mr. Justice Cooper at the Supremo Court yesterday. The ; petitioner was Fanny Holden, of Auckland, boardinghousekceper, who sought a decree dissolving, on the ground of desertion, her marriage with Frederick William Holden, commercial traveller, now believed to be in India. Mr. Allan Moody, instructed by Mr. Pullen, appeared for tho petitioner. At the outset counsel informed His Honor that he had very grave doubts as to whether the Court had jurisdiction in the matter, as the question of domicile would have to be settled.

His Honor decided to hear the evidence first, leaving the question of domicile for subsequent argument and decision. The petitioner stated that she was married to respondent in. March, 1886, at Turakina, near Wangar-ui. Three' children were born to them. Petitioner accompanied her husband to Australia about 1890. About two years later respondent was going to the Chicago Exhibition of 1893, and decided to take her, and leavo her with his people in England on his way to America. They then remained in England for 17 years, always intending to return to New Zealand, and never settling down in any place permanently. Respondent always spoke of coming back to New Zealand. In 1907, whilst petitioner was lying dangerously ill in London, respondent deserted her. Ho told her he was coming back to New Zealand to mako a new homo for her. He left her a cheque, saying lie had opened an account in a bank for her. She presented the cheque, but it was dishonoured. Petitioner was thereupon assisted by a relative, and later by a sister in New Zealand, who sent her the money to bring her and the two children out to New Zealand again. Since he left her in London sho had not seen respondent.

In tho course of the case His Honor commented upon the fact that petitioner and her husband only resided together in New Zealand four and a-half years, in Australia about two years, and 17 years in England. That, surely, might be take*n to indicate abandonment of domicile in New Zealand. He was afraid there was going to bo great difficulty in establishing tho Court's jurisdiction. The matter was so important and serious for tho petitioner that His Honor felt inclined to take the opinion of the Full Court. If tho petitioner married again she might be in a very serious position.

Later His Honor said he was quite satisfied that a very cruel case of desertion had been established. As to 'question of jurisdiction, however, it would be well for counsel to exhaust all the facts before proceeding to legal argument. The case would be held over to allow Mr. Moody to assist the Court in coming to a decision as to whether it could be held that the domicile of the respondent was a New Zealand one.

Subsequently Charles L. Mcintosh, local manager of Collins Brothers, Limited, was called to testily that respondent was formerly in the employ of his firm, and that he saw him in Auckland about seven years ago. At that time Holden stayed with the firm about three months.