1242 ADMINISTRATION AND LEGISLATION [PART V
be held by the Commonwealth High Court to be applicable
only to domiciled persons.!
The position adopted by the Courts in the United Kingdom
now appears to be definitely based on the view that domicile
is essential as a basis of divorce jurisdiction. The case of
the compulsory and artificial change of domicile through
desertion has been considered, and it seems that judicial
opinion is definitely against admitting even this exception
to the general rule. In the case of Deck v. Deek 2 the Court
was apparently in favour of the exercise of jurisdiction in
this case, and in Armyfage v. Armytage 3in 1898, the President
of the Probate, Admiralty, and Divorce Division, expressed
the opinion in favour of the exercise of jurisdiction in such
cases. But since that date judicial opinion, with some
hesitation, seems to have gone the other way.4
On the other hand, it is certain that not only by law,
as laid down in the Acts referred to, have Colonial Parlia-
ments claimed a right to grant divorce in certain cases
without domicile, but what they have claimed in the
ase of a deserted wife is actually what had been asserted
in several cases to be law independently of any legal
snactment.
It was so decided in the case of Ryley v. Ryley in New
Zealand, and in the Victoria case of Hoamie v. Hoamie 8 it
was held that the Court of Victoria had jurisdiction to dissolve
a marriage celebrated in Victoria between a woman there
domiciled and a foreigner who had not abandoned his
domicile of origin, even though the foreigner might be
resident and domiciled in his own country at the commence-
ment of the suit. Apparently in Ripper v. Ripper the West
' Parker v. Parker, 5 C. L. R. 691, affirming 7 S. R. (N. S. W.) 384.
* 2 Sw. & Tr. 90. ® [1898] P. 178.
! Dieey, Conflict of Laws,® pp. 261-4, however, supports the view that
t is allowable in the light of recent English decisions; see Le Mesurier v.
Le Mesurier [1895], A. C. 517; Ogden v. Oyden [1908] P. 46.
* 4J. R.(N.8.)C. A. 50. Cf. Armstrong v. Armstrong, 11 N. Z. L. R. 201.
*6V.L R. (LP &M.)113. In Parker v. Parker,5 C. L. R. 691, the
veneral rule of domicile is asserted by the High Court, Cf. 12 V.L. R. 738.
