se
AUCE ON
MONG HE
Mr. Roberts Wray.
VA
E
OF MAN
2477
I have now reconsidered this very difficult
matter in the light of your minute with the following
results.
1.
It seems, as you suggest, that there is far
more to be said for the view that these marriages
were valid at common law than was at first supposed,
to
and in particular there is a recent case which had not
been decided when Mr. Hastings and yourself had
occasion to consider the matter and to which I think
have
your notice must now be drawn.7 It may be convenient
in the first place to state what the writers had to say
on the subject of the requirements of a valid marriage
in the Colonies generally. Dicey's rule 182 (1)(iii)
reads:-
"Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned,
a marriage is valid when (1) each of the parties
has, according to the law of his or her respective
domicile, the capacity to marry the other; and
(ii) any of the following conditions as to the
form of celebration is complied with (that is to
say): (iii) if the marriage being between
British subjects is celebrated as nearly as
possible in accordance with the requirements of the
English common law in a country where the use of
the local form is impossible".
Dicey's comment at page 744 of the 5th edition states:
"Sub-clause (iii) applies from its very nature at
the present time almost entirely to marriages
taking place beyond the limits of British dominions
but it might have been applied in the case of any
outlying island to which no administrative
machinery has been applied; as was at one time the
case with Pitcairn Island".
He cites the case of Lightbody v West,
182 Law
Times 180, where a marriage in the Argentine by a
Methodist/