CO129-481 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1923 [8-12] — Page 492

484

-

law of his domicile (1.e. Mohammedan law) he was capable of

marrying more than one wife. For some fifteen or more years

before his death he had been resident in England and engaged

as a teacher of Eastern languages. In 1905 in England he went through a ceremony of marriage according to Mohammedan

law with an English woman, described in the proceedings as

Later, Violet Annie Majid, and by her he had two children.

in 1920 (or alternatively in 1922) he went through a cere--

mony of marriage in England according to Mohammedan law with another English woman, described in the action as Kate

Elizabeth Belshah, by whom he had also two children. In 1923

he died intestate. Claims to his estate were made in the

Probate Division of the High Court by these two women and

their respective children, in which each of them denied the

right of the other to succeed to any of the estate. However,

during the hearing the two parties came to an agreement, and the proceedings were terminated on the terms of an agreed

settlement, which was made an Order of the Court. Under this

settlement both parties recognise the validity of both the marriages according to Mohammedan law and the legitimacy of

the/

the four children, and the solicitors to the two parties were

appointed administrators for the purpose of collecting the

estate and distributing it to these two women and their

respective children under the terms of the settlement.

This case is of great interest, because it appears to

show that an English Court recognises the polygamous unions

of a person, by the law of whose domicile such unions are

recognised as marriages, as being capable of supporting

rights of succession to property and of producing legitimate

children. The President, while apparently granting this

amount of recognition to these unions, was careful to make

it clear that neither of these women could claim grants of

administration of the estate as a wife, on the ground that

this would be contrary to English law, since the right to

claim administration as a wife could only be claimed by a

party to a union which was recognised as a marriage for all

purposes in English law. In other words, while recognising

these women's and their children's rights of succession to

the property under the law of the domicile, he did not

recognise/