LOCAL DIVORCE LAWS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 20114, 27 November 1928, Page 11

LOCAL DIVORCE LAWS.

PETITIONER FROM CEYLON.

THE QUESTION OF DOMICILE. COURT RESERVES DECISION. "Are you suggesting that New Zealand is becoming another Reno ?" asked Mr. Justice Frazcr in the Supreme Court yesterday when Mr. Northcroft, in defending a divorce action, said it seemed as though petitioner had come to the Dominion from Ceylon in order to take advantage of the local divorce laws.

"The Court is concerned to prevent that occurring," counsel replied. "Of course it is," His Honor said, "and the Courts will watch that it does not happen."

Colin Findlay Gordon, civil engineer (Mr. Ilampson), sought a divorce from Marion Gordon, of Sydney (Mr. Northcroft). Mr. Ilampson said petitioner was married in 1912 in Ceylon, where ho had lived and worked all his life. For a number of years now he had been employed bv the Ceylon railways. In 1913 a difference arose between him and his wife owing to his mother-in-law living in the house with them. Ho told his wife to advise her mothrr to return to her home in Australia, but when her mother did go she went with her and took the two children.

Petitioner next saw his wife in Sydney in 1919, when returning to Ceylon after spending his leave in Auckland. Mention was then made of a divorce, but respondent demanded £IO,OOO alimony and the negotiations were abortive. Jurisdiction of Court. Mr. Ilampson said the case hinged on an important and interesting point, namely, whether the Court had jurisdiction to hear the petition This arose over the question of domicile. It was contended petitioner was entitled to have the case heard in New Zealand, as ho intended to make his homo at'Rotorua after retiring next March. It was held his place of domicile was now Netf Zealand, even although he was going back to Ceylon for a short period. He was now interested in property at Rotorua, which he had acquired after returning to the Dominion last May.

Petitioner said ho wrote to his wife in Sydney in 1926, asking Ler to return to him. He desired to reopen the question with a view to commencing divorce proceedings, and he admitted he was disappointed when she replied stating she wanted to rejoin him. After 13 years' separation petitioner said ho had no do sire to live with his wife again, nor did ho believe she really wanted to return to him. Question of Residence. .Mr. Northcroft said he was tempted to believe petitioner had selected New Zealand as his domicile for the reason that it was. as far as ho knew, the only country which provided for divorce on the ground of mutual separation. However, it appeared perfectly clear that his real home was in Ccvlon.. Mr. Hampsou said petitioner had definitely formed an intention to reside in New Zealand while on a second visit in 1924. His return !/> Ccvlon 10 months later in order to complete certain work on the railways would not then affect his residential status. "We have fiero a mere sojourner from Ceylon coming into this country, finding a convenient state of law not applicable in his own country and then asserting lie is domiciled here," Mr. Northcroft said. "He asserts this for no other reason than to bring himself into the peculiar provision of the law which does not apply in his own country." After bearing lengthy legal argument, Ilis Honor reserved his decision on the preliminary point regarding petitioner's residential qualifications.