Parker v Parker [1908] HCA 92

5 C.L.R.J OF AUSTRALIA, 691

heard by the Supreme Court, the rule nisi ought to have been H. ©. or 4.

1908. refused. Dwyer Barton and O'Connor JJ. concurred. v. Tue Rat Appeal dismissed. ae New Sourn Solicitor, for the respondents, J. S. Cargill. Wares. C. A, W. (HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.) PARKER . ' . A ; ke : . APPELL PETITIONER, au PARKER . : 5 : 3 5 . RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Me NEW SOUTH WALES.

Husband and wife—Divorce—Domicit of origin—Change of domicit—Jurisdiction. H.C, oF A.

'Phe respondent, whose domicil of origin was in Victoria, where he resided and '1908. carried on business, was married in that State, but never lived there openly = "~~ with his wife, He had a branch office in Sydney ; and a few yearsafter his SYDNEY, marriage he brought his wife and child from Melbourne to Sydney, and there /ay 5. made a home for them at which he lived with them for a few months and then deserted them, From that time, though in the course of his business he $ri@ithC-2.,

was frequently in New South Wales for considerable periods, he never had Connor JJ. any fixed residence there.

Ina suit brought by the wife in the Supreme Court of New South Wales for Aissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion ;

Hed, on the evidence, that the respondent had not acquired a domicil in New South Wales, and therefore the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit,

H.C. or A. 1908, "—

PARKER v. PARKER,

HIGH COURT [1908

In order to establish a change of domicil in such a case there must be clear evidence of an intention by the husband to abandon his domicil of origin and to make a new permanent home in the State to which he has removed.

Decision of the Supreme Court : Parker v, Parker, (1907) 7 8.R. (N.S.W.), 384, affirmed.

Appear from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales affirming the judgment of Simpson J. in a suit for dissolution of marriage.