NOVEL LEGAL POINT.
PROCEEDINGS FOR DIVORCE. PARTIES NOT IN DOMINION. [BY TELEGRAPH. —OWN CORRESPONDENT.] HAMILTON, Tuesday. The question whether the Court had jurisdiction to grant a divorce when the parties were not domiciled in New Zealand, although when petitioner's evidence was taken he was in the Dominion, was raised to-day when Thomas Ewell sought a dissolution of his marriage with Emily Grace Hanford Ewell, on the grounds of separation for the statutory period. Mr. D. Seymour, who appeared for the petitioner, said the parties were elderly and had been married 47 years. They quarrelled after they had been married 20 years, and parted. Petitioner had been domiciled in New Zealand for 12 years, and the petition was set down to be heard last November, but the five months allowed for respondent to file an answer did not expire until three days after the close of the November sessions, and in the meantime Ewell had made arrangements to return to England. His evidence was taken before he left. Mr. Justice Herdman said the point was a novel one and he did not know whether the Court had jurisdiction. The case was adjourned to enable the point to be decided.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH19270629.2.109
Bibliographic details
New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19675, 29 June 1927, Page 13
Word Count
198NOVEL LEGAL POINT. New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19675, 29 June 1927, Page 13
Using This Item
NZME is the copyright owner for the New Zealand Herald. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence . This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of NZME. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Acknowledgements
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Auckland Libraries and NZME.
Log in