Judge's Ruling on the Question of Domicile In the U. 8. Court for China, on Thursday, his Honour Judge C. S. Lobingier gave a written judgment regarding the suit for divorce by Ralph Sharples Boyd against Stella Wheeler Boyd. The judgment in part stated the ground of desertion. The This is a suit for divorce upon
defendant appeared by counsel at the trial and while no formal answer was filed, a statement was offered in evidence which had been executed by her before the American Vice-Consul at Sydney, Australia, reciting, inter alia, that she had" resolved not to return and hive with' plaintiff. The latter's testimony, corroborated by another witness, is to the effect that defendant left him in May, 1921, and that the statement referred to was executed without suggestion from him. The fact of desertion would seem, therefore, fully established.
Referring to the question of domicile under the statute the judgment continued: The plain-here since October, 1918; but we must take judicial notice of the fact that on September 4, 1922, he was convicted of breach of prison and committed to Bilibid Prison, Manila, for a term of five months. If this is to be treated as an interruption of his residence in China, it is obvious that the action is premature. But it seems to Ibe well settled that such involuntary removal does not effect a change of domicile nor impair jurisdiction once acquired. In addition to plaintiff's showing of previous residence, he has returned to China, and it appears that he has obtained employment within the jurisdiction and intends to remain. The residential requirement would seem, therefore, to be satisfied.
His Honour granted a decree of absolute divorce, but no remarriage is permitted within six months. from date,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.