At H. M. Supreme Court on Moo day, his Honour Judge Peter Grain dismissed the petition of Mrs. Grace Cohen, who prayed for the dissolution of her marriage with Isaac Ben Cohen on the grounds of cruelty and adultery.
Counsel in the case were: Mr.
H. Langley-Smith for the petitioner and Mr. M. B. Brown for the respondent.
Tu a lengthy his judgement, Lordship said:
The petitioner in this case Grace Cohen presents a petition asking for a decree of dissolution of her marriage with respondent Isaac Ben Cohen to whom she was married according to Jewish rites on Juno 24, 1917, on the ground of ervelty and adultery, the cruelly alleged being that from January to August, 1918, he habitually used coarse, violent and_ threatening language to her, arvelly ill-treated, and used violence towards her uring the same period, by reason of which she went in fear of her lite; that on August 10,1918, her husband pushed her downstairs, threw a chair at her, struck her on her arms and said, "T will kill On August 10, 1918, the petitionov Jeff her husband and returned to her parents, but a reconciliation took place at the end of August and she returned to her husband's house. But later she alleges that her husband used violent language to her, refused to allow her to go into a maternity home and to summon a doctor for her first confinement. And she alleges that in 1920 and 192} he frequently threatened to kill her, saying, "I am not going to kill you by blood but by degrees," and kept her without food so that her health became seriously affected.
As regards the adultery the petitioner alleges that her husband in November, 1920, committed adul-}
house off North Szechuen Road, tery with a woman unknown a a March.
1921, with a woman known at No. 1 Tiendong Road. cla ion has had powers and author-! ity legated to it to perform a lawful contract of marriage accord-h Law. He states that ihe pa rents of the parties, ceremony was conducted according to the custom and usage of the association and according te Jewish Law at the Jewish Synavogue: that he, as well as some of the Elders of the Association signed the wedding contract as witness ses; that the'execution of the contract complied with the rules of the Association.
The marriage was entered in the records of the Association which are kept in the custody of the Association and the record was produced before me. The "Kesubah" or "Kitaba" a form of certificate of ge contract was drawn up initialled by the Pxesident and given to the petitioner, Grace Cohen.
In the case of Goldstone Goldstone ('Times February 25, ich was a case of jactilation of marriage where the legality of the marriage was directly in dispute, the Right Honourable Sir Henry Duke, President, P.D., held: "That the petitioner had attended among a congregation of his own people to be married: he was believed by them to be married to the respondent who came away with a 'Kesubah.' He represented himself among his own coreligionists in his country (Russia) as married,"" and further found that the Rabbis have power to delegate their power and authority to assistants, and on those facts declared that if was a good and valid marriage.
Tt therefore appears to me that T am justified in holding that in this ease the marriage is a good and valid one.
Tue Qvestion or Domicits.
The next question to decide is that of domicile. Without a a domicile in China I have no jurisdiction in divorce over the parties.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.