Odger's English Common Law

218 OFFENCES AGAINST RELIGION.
Thus A. and B. in the following cases are both guilty of bigamy :
A. obtained a decree nisi for a divorce from his first wife, and honestly
believing that that was all which the English law' required, he remarried
five days before the decree nisi was made absolute.
B., when only twenty years of age, married a girl of nineteen. He was
advised by counsel (erroneously) that this marriage was invalid, as both
parties were under age. He accordingly remarried.
(c) Lastly, the accused may show that the first marriage
was dissolved hy a decree of a competent Court. A Court is
not recognised as competent, unless the husband's domicil
is within the jurisdiction of that Court. A wife takes her
husband's domicil, and can therefore, as a rule, obtain disso-
lution of her marriage only in the country in which he is
domiciled. 1
A man can only have his domicil in one country at a time.
This country generally is the country in which he was born.
He may, however, acquire a domicil in some other country
by leaving the country of his birth and taking up his resi-
dence in such other country with the intention of permanently
residing there ; and if this is done honestly and not with a
view to obtaining a divorce, a decree of divorce subsequently
obtained in the country of his new domicil will be recognised
in the country where he was born. A divorce obtained in
another country by fraud or collusion would not be recognised
in the English Courts. Thus, if a man and woman
who were married in England genuinely acquire a foreign
domicil not with a view to obtaining a divorce, and are
subsequently divorced abroad according to the law of that
foreign country, that divorce will be recognised as valid in
England, even though it may have been granted for some
caus which is not in England a ground for divorce. 2
Where, however, a domiciled Englishman, married in
England, on legal advice went purposely to Scotland and
lived there for a short time in order to obtain a divorce by
1 Casdagli v. Casdagli, [1919] A. 0. 145. But this rule may be departed from in
special circumstances; see Stathatos v. Stat/iatos, [1913] P. 46 ; Be Mmitaigu v.
Be Montaigu, ib. 154 : and R. v. Hammertmith Registrar, [1917] 1 K. B. 634.
8 E.g., in Hungary a husband can divorce his wife, if she absents herself from
his house for two years without his consent.
—