to validate a cleance which the Count would not
under the excoating law of Temmytaus ratating 5
to hiponce have been empowered to waste.
As the If the husband was at the time
of
Late
desses which the EJ purported to
wate
dom ceibed in the Colony then the Dworse bedinance of 1932 would have afflied, on the other hand
q
be was not counciled in the Colong the
fotitioner could have totten brossading, under
this Luction & Colonial & worse windeation Got 1926
applied to the tolong by the ways toys Dwores Jurnal Cum (1955- Drovided
(1) the Lantea's were
mitive subjects donmailed in England or feellend;
(2) the batitimer at the time of presenting the be totion resided in the Hong,
was solemnered in the Colony of the grounds
(3) the marriage
for divorce
It does not lay ang
COORD-
given the Colony.
enterfied
follow Beat the Natitioner
the above enactments through of abe
the conditions of ou
other
of the
granted
atall
did not are we to reffone the C-7 dance without
regard to law or by guesswork??
MARRIAGES.
15/4/47
1.
Z.
There is I think, no serious problem.
With reference to paragraph 3 of (1) on this file, it was not intended to suggest that the marriages should be made subject to a provisional Ordere rely that the Ordinance should follow the form of the provisional order in not scheduling the marriages affected. disadvantage of validating only the marriages of persons whose names are scheduled, is that some marriages might be overlooked.
3. Nor was it intended to suggest that the parties should be given
the option of affirming or reprobating the marriage, but merely that they should be given an opportunity to make representations before a decision was finally reached as to the course to be adopted. I had not, however, appreciated that there were so many marriages affected (557), and it does appear that it would be impracticable to consult all the parties. In those circumstances, however, I think it will be
/preferable