The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1878-12-11
INTERESTING ENGLISH Law CASES

A very important decision has just been
rendered by tho English Court OF Appeal in a
divorce cnse. The question involved was
whether the Divorce Court. from which the mp
peal was brought up. has jurisdiction to grant
a wife either n separation from bed and board
or an absolute divorce where she Is an Eng
lsh subject and her husband forcgner-pcr-
manently resident in England, though not le-
galy domicilcd thcre-and the marriage was
abroad. but the misconduct has taken place in
England. The plaintiff. an Englishwoman.
married u Frenchman IN Gibraltar. in 1856.
They were at the time the suit was commenced.
and had bcen for many years previous thereto.
resident in England, where the husband was u
Vice. Consul Of France. Tho adultery and de-
scrtion were alleged to have occurred IN Eng
land. The defendant. however, had not elected
to reside forever in that country and regard it
us his home. and had not made It his legal
domcie. He therefore dcmurrcd to his wife's
petition OF divorce. on the ground that the
English Court Of Divorce had no Jurisdiction.
The Judge Of the Divorce Court. Sir Robert
Phillimorc. sustained this view. and the wife
took an appeal. which was argued In July last.
The three Lords Justices OF Appeal who
heard the case have now delivered elaborate
opinions. by a majority OF one. deciding tho
appeal in favor Of the wife. reversing the judy
mcnt Of the court below and RENTING Ne suit
to DO tried on the merits.
The question may still have to be determined
by tho House OF Lords. but AS II now stands. the
caso must DO regarded rs settling tho English
law adversely to the view held by our American
courts. Lord Justice James. with whom Lord
Justice Cotton concurrod. held that tho iuris-
dcton OF the old ecclesiastical courts. or courts
Christian was jurisdiction over all Christians
a a..
out regard to nationality. and that as tho act
creating the existing Divorce Court transferred
to il all jurisdiction formerly vested in the
ecclesiastical courts. and was passed expressly
to constitute q court with exclusive jurisdic-
ton -, matters matrimonial bl England" the
Divorce Court could grant the dissolution Of
marriage prayed for. Lord Justice James said
that although no doubt the American courts
had held that the jurisdiction is To bo deter
mined 10y the domicile OF the party at the time
OF tho complaint. no such principle had been
recognized in tho courts Of Great Britain. but.
on tho contrary in Scotland the courts have
always exercised jurisdiction in entire disre-
gard Of such principle
Lord Justice Brett in nm able dissenting opin-
ion maintained that although the words OF the
act were large. the meaning Of the general
words employed. matters matrimonial in Eng
land" should be confined to matrimonial mat
ters arising between parties domicilcd there.
The country OF the mere residence Of the par
ties was not interested in their married state 80
long ~ the husband had n domicie elsewhere.
for that was the country in which both were le-
gay domiciled. aud therefore that was the coun-
try whose courts had jurisdiction. To establish
this Wow the Lord Justice cited two well known
American authorities. Bishops Law OF Di-
yorcc and Storys Conflict OF Laws. and then
went into an elaborate examination OF the Eng
fish cases. to show that they supported the
same view. especially citing Loley's cass-which
excited a great sensation forty years ago where
man divorced in Scotland from an English
marriage. remarked In England. was convicted
Of bigamy in ENGLAND and sentenced to be
transported-and the case OF Warrender against
| Warrender.