arly 3 cases,
have
been the subject
& the Gov. has asked on
2 of which
to be made
of fresh proceedings
enquiry
ран
C.A. Maddin & Co. who in the 3rd, case to find
are presumably aching
out whether fresh proceedings
instituted in that case.
have been
file.
Draft.
a
accoup
ཅིག
3. Whyte
13.
We approved (in 17 on the '46 file) the proposed validating Ordinance in respect of marriages contracted during the period of enemy occupation subject to
ایم
(a) the deletion of the last three lines of
paragraph 2 of the draft Ordinance behind 16 on the '46 file,
(b) all individuals concerned being warned of the
proposed legislation and given opportunity to make representations,
(c) consideration of the suggestion that the names
of the parties to the marriages should not be included in the schedule to the proposed
Ordinance which should be amended to follow Home Office practice.
The Governor agrees to (a) but (b) he says would be very difficult since 557 marriages at least are involved and not all the parties thereto are in the Colony. I think we should accept his advice that the parties should not be approached both because of the practical difficulty involved and for the reason of policy given at X on page 2 of 1.
I am not clear, however, what are the Governor's objections to substitutenga méthod analogous to the Home Office provisional orders for the schedule quoting the names of the individual parties annexed to the draft Ordinance unless it is again that the number
/involved