The New Law Reports (1)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1896 Excerpt: ...the Scotch) as putting an end to the marriage bond of a domiciled Englishman. The next case in order, Yelverkm v. Yelverton (1 S. cfc T. 574), was a suit at an alleged wife's instance for restitution of conjugal rights, which was dismissed by the Judge Ordinary. The husband, who was called as respondent, was not resident, and had never been domiciled in England. Their Lordships have noticed these cases because they were founded upon in the argument addressed to them. They need hardly observe that in neither of them was any question raised in regard to matrimonial domicile. In Tollemache v. Tollemache it might very well have been contended that four years' residence there have given the spouses a matrimonial domicile in Scotland; but that view of the law does not seem to have occurred either to the parties or to the Bench. In the next case, Brodie v. Brodie (2 S. Ss T. 259), the petitioner, being the husband, was resident, but had not his domicile in England. He had been married to the respondent in Tasmania, and left her behind him in Melbourne, when he came to Great Britain. His wife never came to England, and the acts of 1895. adultery charged in his petition were committed in the colony. In pBrvy giving decree, the Court, consisting of the Judge Ordinary, with Council. Wightman and Williams, J.J., observed: -- We think that the peti tioner was bona fide resident here, not casually, or as a traveller; ' after he became resident here, his wife was carrying on an adulterous intercourse in Australia. He is, therefore, entitled to a decree nisi for a dissolution of his marriage. These observations go the whole length of affirming that the residence of the husband in a country where he has not a domicile, if such ...