- 2 -
B:
that the Court (in the particular case of Dalziel v. Dalziel)
purported to be exercising jurisdiction under the Divorce Ordinance,
1932, the long title of which reads "An Ordinance to confer on the
Supreme Court Jurisdiction in Divorce and Matrimonial causes" ;
C: that the Decree Absolute granted by the Court in the case of
Dalziel v. Dalziel (in the Stanley Internment Camp) is headed "In the
Supreme Court of Hong Kong Divorce Jurisdiction" ; and
25
D: that reference to the Chief Justice without naming the Chief
Justice might create the misunderstanding that the present Chief Justice
had purported" to exercise jurisdiction in the Stanley Internment Camp.
It appeared to me, however, unsuitable, unless unavoidable, that the name
of the Chief Justice who granted the decrees in Dalziel v. Dalziel i.e.
Sir Atholl MacGregor, now deceased, should be used for the purpose of
the Ordinance.
5. The Ordinance does not contain a suspending Clause as ordinar-
ily required in Bills for divorce by Article XXVI of the Royal Instruc-
tions because omission of such a Clause was authorised by paragraph (1)
of the Secretary of State's telegram No. 882 dated the 2nd June, 1947.
Recourse to the proviso to Article XXVI, governing cases of emergency, was
considered necessary because it was reported that the Petitioner in the
case of Dalziel v. Dalziel, in reliance on the validity of the Stanley
decrees, having re-married is expecting a child in the near future.
HONG KONG,
สงวน
2 June, 1947.
1
Attorney General.