1946
Mr. Hastings.
Will you please see the letter at 7, from which I understand Mr. Gimson's point to be that we should ensure that the proposed Ordinance does not legalise marriages which would have been invalid on grounds of bigamy or for some other reason had they been performed in normal times. We must of course endorse this view. As to the "difficult" cases, examples of which Mr. Gimson gives, it will I think be for the lawyers of the Hong Kong Government to advise on such cases on the restoration of Civil Government.
Subject to your comments I suggest that we should send a copy of Mr. Gimson's letter to the C.C.A.0. a m
тре
1.46.
8
It was beaver this paint that pot Rotants way suspected his perpend
chapto
I do not think them in
any doubt hat that they care
the pint and the proponed legislation
will at rabdate
any
marin which
ims at have her valid
if pempend
with budding frame time law:
and I had the draft shuld be
anunded in this sense
سیسه
бол
2nd y
any
ашу приши
'hgany!
Then
ti
de the hid instammen Malunden jün
Los bem
manage and do
not think there i
anything these
can u ohms be done amit it.
عساده
Ky. W. His ling
3/1.
Page
Page
age 9
Ms Hawlings
I love spoken to
loko
golsen
amended
wish damp fawiyom
look
7
8 To. Mr. Giron
9 To Ceil. Hong Kong whc.
> (Saw No.2)
10 To CA4 whe & and Eil.
11. From R. J. Minnile
2/1/46
7.
8.1.46
30/12/45-
Mr. Hastings
Would you please see Mr. Robert Wray's minute of the 3rd December, our letter to Mr. Minnitt at 3, and his reply at 11. If you agree I think all we need do is to send a copy of this letter to the C.C.A.0. as in draft Savingram.
22. 1. 46.
12 To: Hong Kong. -Saw No13 % 11.
13 TO CAL whe 12 and End.
To
(2) No reply - In view of lapse of time? Put by
Put by
D. &. W. 576.
Matchpole
29/4.
7/2/46
7/2/466
Jee
at out
S pས༠
114. To. Hong Kong - Deaf No 75-fuels -
4/17/146
age 9
Page
Page
ge 10
10
?
Remind
as
in
so draft savupiano
in
view
of letter from
messss.
Maddin
at (5)
ar
53528/330.
).3. Whyte 2%.
28
22 15. de Hikang. Sam 176 (4:14) 2016
16. From Hong Kong Des. Corf 2
Cons..
26/9/46
Y
Z
which
bared
his
It will be seen from 6 (it was passed on es a minute of 10th November, 1945) that Mr. Hastings took the view that there was some doubt as to the validity of marriages performed in Stanley internment camp, and that, therefore, validating legislation was desirable.
In his despatch at 16, the Governor agrees with this view and enclosed a draft Ordinance to give effect to the validation.
It was
In 53528/330 attached, a firm of Solicitors raised the question of validating legislation in regard to decrees of dissolution of marriage. assumed here that the two matters were analogous. (See para. 4 of our despatch at 14). The Governor's Advisers, however, have expressed a contrary view on the grounds that the continued exercise of jurisdiction by the Chief Justice was not consistent with his internment. (See paragraph 6 of 16).
If this view is accepted, and the decrees pronounced by the Chief Justice are considered null and void, the question arises of whether any other pronouncements by the Chief Justice are thus invalidated. I have spoken to Mr. North (who was interned in Stanley) and he tells me that, as far as he knows, no other cases of importance would be affected by such a decision. The Chief Justice held a Magistrates' Court and gave judgment in a number of petty cases of theft and assault, but these are not likely, I imagine,
to cause trouble.
As regards the decrees of dissolution of marriage, it appears that only the parties of two decrees nisi and one decree absolute will be affected: (presumably one of these is the subject of Messrs. Maddin's enquiry). The Governor does not say whether any of the parties have remarried, or if there are any children of the remarriages. But presumably any question of illegitimacy can be rectified if further proceedings are takenby the parties in question, and the fact of not introducing validating legislation in this respect will, therefore, merely be that the
/parties
ge 10Page 11
x