In the Divorce Division of the High Court of Justice on 6th June, the case of sr. Reeks and Ruttunjee came on. This was the petition of Arthur James Francis Reeks, of Shanghai, in the Empire of China, an elficer of the Imperial Chinese Customs, for the dissolution of his marriage with Frances Maud Reeks, by reason of her adultery with Byram Ruttunjec.
Mr. Newton Crane said the parties were married on Oct. 9, 1885, at the British Consulate General, Shanghai, and there had been three children of the marriage, two of whom were now alive. he ce-respondent, was a sharebroker in Shanghai, and in March, 1895, the petitioner commeheed proceedings in the Consular Court there, and obtained a judicial separation ud damages by reason of his wife's misconduct with the ce-respondent. Subsequently the respondent again returned to the ce-respondent, and the present petition was filed. There had been a commission to China, and the petitioner and his witnesses had been examined there.
The President—There may be a serious question as to the petitioner's domicile. 's he here now?
Mr. Crane—The domicile was proved on the commission. The petitioner swore that both he and his father were born in Hampshire, and that he intended to return to England.
The President—T do not understand how the Consular Court could have jurisdiction in a matrimonial suit, unless the parties were domiciled in China.
The evidence take on commission having been read, The President sai he did not feel disposed to deal with the case as it stood, nor until he had seen the petitioner and had certain matters explained. He did not understand how proceedings came to be taken in the Consular Court, and he wished to obtain information as to what took place and learn all the facts, The case must therefore be adjourned, and go into the reserve list.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.