CHAP. IX] DIVORCE AND STATUS 1243
Australia Court so held in 1907! In Canada in 1887 , while
discussing the Ash divorce case, the Minister of Justice? dis-
tinctly adopted the doctrine of Deek v. Deek, and the Ash Bill
to some extent proceeded on that view, which was also laid
down in Mr. Justice Gwynne’s judgement in Stevens v. Fisk.
The position in Canada is rendered curious by the fact
that the divorce is granted by Act of Parliament, but it is
clear that the fact that the act is a legislative one would not
alter the view taken of it by a Court in this country.
In 1845 the Bill of the United Provinces of Canada for the
Harris divorce never received the royal assent, as it attempted
to divorce a military officer only temporarily resident in
Canada, who had married there, and it was pointed out by
the Secretary of State that the Law Officers advised that
such a divorce would not be held valid outside Canada.t Tt
is important to note that the recent practice ® in Canada is
to insert in the preamble of the Divorce Bills a statement
that the parties were domiciled there at the time of the
divorce ; it would be interesting to see how far an assertion
by the Parliament of the Dominion, based on an examination
by the Senate Committee, will be held in English Courts to
preclude the possibility of raising the question whether in
point of fact the parties were so domiciled. Tt should be said
that this is a new departure, and that from some of the older
Acts, for example c. 133 of 62 & 63 Vict., it would appear
at least possible that domicile was not strictly regarded in
the case of a deserted wife. Indeed, the Act 9 & 10 Edw. VII.
c. 100 shows clearly in the preamble that the case is one of
a wife whose husband has changed his domicile.
It may be added that the English doctrine has frequently
been expressly adopted in the self-governing Colonies, as
for example in the case of the Cape of Good Hope,® in the
b West Australian, J uly 2, 1907. Contra in New South Wales, Okumura
v. Okumura, Age, June 24,1908. Cf. Brook v. Brook, 13 N, 8. W. L. R.
Div. 9; Tappenden v. Tappenden, 25 W. N. 84.
* Canada House of Commons Debates, 1887, p. 1022.
8 L.N., 42. 4 Parl. Pap., H. C. 529, 1864, p. 28.
* e.g. in the Divorce Acts of 1909 and 1910.
} Peters v. Peters, (1899) 9 C. T. R. 289; ex parte Bright, (1902) 12
