Since the case of Casdagli v. Casdagli (Law Reports 1919. Appeal cases) there is no legal impossibility in a British subject acquir ing domicile in China (an extra territorial country). I cannot shut ty eyes to the fact that there are British subjects who are domt., oiled in China. Already two divorce cases have been tried and one de cree made; and the jurisdiction in divorce was granted because it was known that there was a need for it; once the legal difficulty created by the decision in In re-Tootal's Trusts had been got over.
I start this inquiry then with a presumption against this acquisition, but there is no doubt that that presumption can be overcome. Here what is the evidence? Mr. Powell came to China as a professional Iman some 20 years ago and has remained here, save for two visits te England, ever since. He carries en his profession here and he has no ties or business relations with England: (his domicile of origin) he owns no property in England, save a bank account which is used for the payment of subscriptions to such institutions as the Ins-! titute of Civil Engineers, the Royal: Geographical Society, ete. His visits to England were for business Purposes only and on the second one' (in 1914) his wife was left be-were educated in England: and cno has returned and is now in China, while the other is employ ed in the A.P.C. He swears that it is his intention to remain here permanently, and he called a witness to. speak to his statements to that effect.
DOMICILE PROVED, Now his word is not conclusive proof of the fact, and if there ars circumstances in the case which: show that what he says is not true or not likely to be true they may influence the Court in its conclusions. It 1s true that this case is undefended: no cross-examination has been made of the petitioner on this point; but is. there any reason why I should not accept his account of his position here and his intentions? I confess I see rone; and therefore in this case I hold that Mr, Powell has proved his domicile in China and that therefore I have jurisdiction to try this case. I only want to add this: Every case must turn on its own facts: domicile of choice is a question of fact; the inference which the Court draws from guch facts as are proved before it: and as I read the opinion of the Law Lords in Casdagli's case,' especiaily that of the Lord Chancellor, the safe-guards which surround subjects in China tend to lessen the presumption against the aequisition of a domicile in China rather then to increase it.
The case must proceed.
¥s. MacDonald, in his opening statement, said the case was a most singular one. Although the wife deserted the husband, nevertheless it was the wife who had commence divorce proceedings at Reno, Nevada The petitioner being naturally anxious in all the circumstances of the case to have the matrimonial] bonds severed with.
little trouble as possible, was informed that the local American lawyers in Nevada State had de clared that British Courts all over the world had decided to recognize. the validity of a Nevada decree—providing the respondent entered an appearance and. signed a power of attorney to certain local lawyers authorizing them to enter an appearance for him. Mr. Powell never saw the petition, knew nothing of the allegations. The next thing he heard was that he had Leen divorced. Recently he saw the contents of his wife's petition At the time of the proceedings, he himself was in China.
"If this really: represents the advice of the Nevada lawyers to British subjects seeking a divorce, when for some reason they are debarred from obtaining a divorce in their own country (counsel proceeded), it is indeed unfortunate for these lawyers' hapless clients. It may be even tragic for any issue born after the dissolution of the first marriage of their parents."
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.