Sinclair's Divorce Bill
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1897 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 1897 |
Divorce Bill - Definitive Decree of Divorce - Action for Criminal Conversation - Standing Orders, Nos. 175, 177 - Domiciled Irishman - Jurisdiction of the English Court - Evidence taken in India.
Great caution ought to be observed in allowing a petition for divorce to proceed in the English Divorce Court where there is ground for supposing that the parties are domiciled out of the jurisdiction.
It is not necessary for the first reading of an Irish divorce bill that a definitive sentence of divorce à mensâ et thoro should have been pronounced in the Irish Courts.
Where in the proceedings upon an Irish divorce bill it appears that no action for criminal conversation has been brought against a co-respondent who was not domiciled and could not be served in Ireland, the House of Lords may allow the bill for divorce to be received.
Where there is no means of enforcing the warrant of the House of Lords to take evidence in parts of India, the evidence as taken and used in a previous suit in the English Court of Divorce may be allowed to be used quantum valeat.
BILL to dissolve the marriage of Alfred Law Sinclair, of Holyhill, Strabane, county Tyrone, Ireland, a lieutenant-colonel in the Indian Staff Corps, with Isabella Sinclair, his wife, on the grounds of her adultery in India; to enable the petitioner to marry again; and for the alteration of their marriage settlement.
The marriage took place in India on March 4, 1878, the petitioner being then, and now, a domiciled Irishman; the respondent being a domiciled Irish woman. In contemplation of the said marriage a settlement was executed in December, 1877, by which shortly it was stipulated that the income of the petitioner's portion of the fund should be paid to him for life, and after his death to the respondent for life if she survived; and after the death of the survivor of the marriage the trustees were to hold the fund for the benefit of the children of the marriage as the petitioner and the said Isabella Sinclair should by deed or will jointly appoint; and in default of such appointment, as the survivor should appoint; and in default of any such appointment, in trust for all or any of the children or child of the marriage equally who attained twenty-one, &c.; and in default of such children, as the petitioner should by deed or will appoint; and in default, over to his brothers and sisters. Provided that if the petitioner survived the said Isabella Sinclair, it was to be lawful for him at any time after her death to appoint (if there should be not more than one child, &c.) half the income of the petitioner's fund to be paid after his death to any wife he might marry after the death of the said Isabella Sinclair for the life of such wife or any less period; and further to appoint, if there should not be any more than one child, &c., of the said marriage, that any part of the said trust fund not exceeding one-half thereof (subject to any appointment of the income thereof for any future wife) should after the petitioner's death be held in trust for the children or child of such future marriage as he should appoint as therein declared. Then, as to the respondent's marriage portion, it was declared that the interest should be paid to the petitioner for life, and after his death to the respondent should she survive him; and after the death of the survivor the trustees were to hold the fund for the children of the marriage, as the petitioner and the said Isabella Sinclair should jointly appoint, and in default of appointment for the children equally; and if no children attained the age of twenty-one, &c., in trust for the respondent's executors, &c., should she survive the petitioner, but if she predeceased the petitioner, in trust for the person or persons she should appoint by deed or will, and in default of appointment for such persons as under the Statute of Distributions would have been entitled had she died intestate and unmarried.
The petitioner and respondent resided together until March, 1883, in various parts of India, where the petitioner was stationed on duty; there being now living one child of the marriage.
In March, 1883, the respondent, while the petitioner was away on service, left the petitioner's home, and went to reside with Richard Humphrey Tyacke, then an officer in the army, but now retired.
On August 9, 1883, the petitioner presented a petition in the Divorce Division, England, for divorce and the custody of the child. The petitioner described himself as of Holyhill, Strabane, in the county Tyrone, Ireland. He thus described himself as a domiciled Irishman; but the suit being undefended, it appears that no questions were asked by the President, Sir James Hannen, as to the jurisdiction of the Court; nor at that time did anybody raise any questions.
On December 28, 1883, the English Divorce Court made an order that the deposition of Major Rodwell and Major-General Nicolson as to the adultery of the respondent with R. H. Tyacke should be taken on commission in India. And...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clancy v Min Social Welfare
...V27 778 DOMICILE & MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS ACT 1973 UK W V W 1993 ILRM 294 LE MESURIER V LE MESURIER 1895 AC 517 SINCLAIRS DIVORCE BILL 1897 AC 469 SHAW V GOULD 1868 LR 3 HL 55 MCCOMISKEY, IN RE 1939 IR 573 CONSTITUTION ART 40.3 CONSTITUTION ART 41 SILLAR, RE: HURLEY V WIMBUSH 1956 IR 344 I......
-
Bank of Ireland v Caffin
..."No". 1 [1958] I.R. 336. 2 [1964] P. 144. [1961] 3 W.L.R. 900. 3 [1969] 1 A.C. 33. 4 See p. 124, ante. 5 (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 55. 6 [1897] A.C. 469. 7 [1896] 1 I.R. 8 [1895] A.C. 517, 527. 9 [1958] I.R. 336. 10 See p. 124, ante. ...
-
Mayo-Perrott v Mayo-Perrott
...86-88. (2) 8 App. Cas. 43. (3) [1899] 1 Ch. 781. (4) [1906] P. 209. (5) [1896] 1 I. R. 603. (6) [1893] P. 89. (7) [1901] A. C. 446. (8) [1897] A. C. 469. (1) [1921] P. 204 at p. 207. (2) [1893] P. 89. (3) 70 L. J. K. B. 998. (4) [1917] 1 K. B. 634. (5) [1896] 1 I. R. 603. ...