Judge's Decision on the Question of Petitioners' Domicile in China At the resumed hearing at H. M Supreme" Couré last Friday of the petition of Sidney J. Powell for the dissolution of his with Catherine Agnes Powell, Skinner Turner, Chief Judge, held that petitioner had satisfactorily proved his domicile in China and pronounced a decree nisi. Eric Anthony Sykes was cited as corespondent and the case was undefended. The parties were married at H. M. Consulate, Cairo, in 1901. There were two children of the marriage. Proceedings for a decree of divorce were instituted by Mrs. Powell at Reno, Nevada, and she obtained a decree on May 5, 1921.
Mr. R. G. MacDonald appeared for petitioner.
PROOF OF DOMICILE, Sir Skinner Turner, in derivering his decision on the question of domicile, gaid:—In this matter the petitioner alleges a domicile in China. It is necessary to prove this in all divorce suits in this Court and prove it strictly, as has been insisted upon in every case heard under this jurisdiction. It is clear law that the jurisdiction to dissolve marriage depends upon domicile: if the parties are not domiciled in China, there is no jurisdiction to entertain the suit: hence I myself demand that this matter be heard and determined first, before the facts of any case are gone into. And I think that a reason why this full and adequate proof of domicile is demanded is not far to seek. There is abundant authority for the pro position that there is a presumption against the acquisition of a domicile of choice in a non-Christian or Oriental country. I need only refer to the opinions of the Law Lords in Casdagli. v. Casdagli and to the judgment of Sir H. de Sausmarez in the Mackay will case (Tientsin); and I am not surpris-to find that such is the position The general desire to retura "home" after a sojourn in the East is almost universal: the differences in the customs, laws, religions and manners of the peoples of Oriental or non-Christian countries are so marked that it is not surprising that such a presumption exists. Hence, for this reason alone, J shall require strict and complete proof of domicile when it is alleged to be in China. I want to clear out of the way one matter: "domi gilo" does not affect "nationality." A man remains a British subject even if his domicile is in China, and a British subject with a domidle here remains subject to the jurisdiction of this Court exactly as he was before, and owes the same allegiance to the British
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.