Tama County Republican. (Toledo, Tama County, Iowa) 1867-1872, 1870-09-29

From the London Times,

From the London Times,
Court of Probate and Divorce,
July 26, before Lord Penzance-
Shaw VS.. the Attorney General. The
petitioner prayed for decree under
the Legitimacy Declaration act that
the marriage with William Shaw was
valid. She had previously married
one William Suthers, an English
man, IN England, and had lived with
him in England. She afterward went
to America and lived apart trom him
in that country for two years and .
halt, and obtained . decree from a
court IN Iowa dlsolying her marriage
with him on the ground Of his adult
ry, coupled with dessrtion. Suthers
had never abandoned his English
domicile, and was alive when the Pc
titloner married Shaw. The question
therefore arose whether this court
could recognize as valid the Ameri-
can divorce OF the English marriage.
The case was argued by DIR.
Deane, @. c., and DR.. Swabey for
the petitioner; and by the Solicitor
General and Mr. Bourke for the At
torney General.
HIS Lordship this morning deliv-
cred Judgment as follows: Tue prin.
ciplcs upon which the question here
raised must be decided have been so
recently discussed in several cases IN
the court OF ultimate appeal that it is
not necessary TO enter upon the dis.
cussion al large on the present occa-
sion. 1t may be sufficient to observe,
firstly, tha. "Lolly's case" has never
been overruled; secondly, that in no
case has foreign divorce been held
to invalida,e an English marriage be
tween English subjects where the
parties were not domicilcd in the
country by the tribunals OF which
the divorce was granted. Whether
ii so domic,led, the English courts
would recognize and act upon such a
divorce. appears to be question not
wholly tree from doubt; but the bet
ter opinion seems to be that they
would DO SO, If the divorce be for a
ground of divorce recognized as such
IN thls country, and the foreign coan-
try be not resorted to for the collu.
sive purpose OF calling in the aid ol
its tribunals. To my own mind it IL
manifestly just and expeaicnt tina,
those who may have permanently
taken up their abode IN . foreign
country reslgning their English dom
lcilc, should, in contemplation OF Eng
lish laws, be permitted to resort with
affect to the tribunal exercising juris
dlction over the new community oi
which, by their change of domicile,
they have become part, rather than
that they should be forced back fol
relief upon the tribunal Of the coun-
try they have abandoned. But the
inquiry isneedless in this case because
it seems to me to be neither just nor
Iexpedient that woman, whose dom
icile is English and whose husbands
domicile is English, should, while
living seperate from him in foreign
state in which he has never up to the
time OF the divorce set his foot, be
permitted to resort to the local tri-
buna!, and without any notice to her
husband except an advertisement
which he never saw, and was never
likely to see, obtain divorce against
him behind his back. No case has
ever yet decided that . man can, ac-
cord,ng to the law Of this country,
be divorced from his wife by the tri-
buuals Of country IN which he has
had neither domicilo nor residence. He
has never submitted himself. either
directly or intcrentially, to the jur-
isdlctiou of such court, and has
nevev by any act OF his own laid
himself open to be affected by its
process, If it ever reaches him. A
Judgment so obtained has, therefore,
in addition to the want OF jurisdic-
ton, the lncurable vice Of beng con-
trary to natural justice. because the
proceedings are erparts and in the
absence OF the party affected by
thems : IL follows that the marriage
upon which the petitioner lounds the
claim to a decree is invalid, and the
petition must be dismissed. t