54185/47
Code
OUTWARD TELEGRAM
38 11
TO HONG KONG (C.A.G.)
FROM S. of S. COLONIES
Sent 2nd June, 1947. 17.45 hours
IMMEDIATE
No. 882 Confidential
Your telegram No. 905.
Interment Camp Divorces.
1. I agree to introduction of Bill proposed in your telegram, with omission of clause prescribed in Article XXVI of Royal Instructions.
2.
As regards terms of Bill, definition of "Supreme Court" in Section 2 would appear to assume a positive answer to the very question at issue, namely whether the Chief Justice sitting in the Interment Camp was the Supreme Court of the Colony. If definition is retained it might be preferable to alter it so as to avoid this assumption. As, however, there appears to be no other reference to the Court in the Bill, definition may be unnecessary.
3.
It seems desirable that when parties to a divorce are informed of this legislation, they should be warned of doubt as to its efficacy if husband was not domiciled in Colony at the time.
Reference paragraph 3 of my telegram 113, 307, glad to know as soon as possible whether you have information as to whether husband in case referred to in paragraph 2 (c) of that telegram was domiciled in Hong Kong. Case in question is that raised with me by Messrs. Michael and Company.
54185/47
Code
OUTWARD TELEGRAM
38 11
TO HOW KONG (0.A.0.)
FROM 8. OF Sa
COLONIES.
Sent 2nd June, 1947. 17.45 huren
IMERDIATI
No. 882 Confidential
Your telegram No. 905.
Interment Camp Divorces.
10 I agree to introduetion of Bill proposed In your telegran, with mission of cuspending eleme prescribed in Article XXVI of Royal Instrna kiona.
20
As regarâu terms of B111, definition of "Suprese Court" in Bection 2 would appear to absuw 2. positive answer to the very question 26 issue, ramię whether the Chief Justies sitting in, the Intermant C.mp was the Supéens Court of the Colour. If definition is 4* retained it might be preferable to avert it zo ra nyt avoid this assumption. As, however, thote aprenys to be no other reference to the Court in the Bill, deflat sy ba may be unecessary,
3.
It seems desirable that when partien lo ti divorce are informed of this legislation, they shodd by verned of toubt as to ita offlcsey if husband qua 17t domiciled in Colony at the time <
Reference paragraph 3 of by telegren 113, 307, glad to know 28 100% Ra possible whether you have «</ information as to whether husband in case referred to lea paragraph 2 (c) of that telegram was domiciled in Body Kong. Case in question is that raised with me by Nidada and Company.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.