Wt. 29446/552 9/46 50m. S. & S. Ltd.
C. O.
Miss Whyte 19/5
54185/47.
45
Mr..
Galsworthy 21/5
Roberts Wray 73
Mr.
Permt. U.S. of S.
Mr.
Salowonly 23/5 atur
Mr..
Parly. U.S. of S.
Secretary of State.
94.5.47
DRAFT.
0. A. G.
HONG KONG,
393
SAVINGRAM.
NO.
(2)
FURTHER ACTION.
CONFIDENTIAL
My Confidential telegram No. 807 of
17th May.
Internment, Camp Divorces.
Maems
The following are the pounds for
the advice in para. 1 of my Confidential
telegram No. 007 that,except where the
husband was, at the time of the divorce
proceedings, domiciled in Hong Hong, an
Ordinance purporting to validate the decrees
would amount to an attempt to amend the
Indian and Colonial Divorce Jurisdiction
Acts and would therefore be null and void:-
(a) Ir the parties to the divorce were
not domiciled in Hong Kong, the Court had no
jurisdiction except by virtue of the Indian
and Colonial Divorce Jurisdiction Acts, 1926
and 1940, as applied to Hong Kong by the
Hong Kong Divorce Jurisdiction Order in
Council,
1935. The Act as so applied
confers jurisdiction in such cases on "the
Supreme Court of Hong Kong". The validity of
the divorce is open to question mainly by
reason of doubt as to whether the Supreme
Court was, at that time, competent to
pronounce decrees; and the Act must
necessarily refer to a properly constituted
Court,