CO129-610-5 Marriages solemnized in Stanley Camp during the Japanese occupation and subsequent legislation for divorce 14-2-1947 - 27-6-1947 — Page 14

given in

With regard

should at

т

para. 2 of (12)?

to

paragraph 3 - ? we

new write to the solicitors as

53528/330 (attached),

matter

draft

a

عند التحسين

them

to

Came

discuss the

13

P.S.

official correction

J. B. Whyte 1%.

Correction has now been received,

and I have inked in

the amendments,

D.J.W."/6

Mr. Roberts Wray.

Please see No. 12, which incorporates the corrections received from Hong Kong. Three points arise:-

(a) Definition of Supreme Court. Would X of No. 12 overcome the objection referred to in your minute of 30th May?

(b) Warning to parties. No. 12 says that, further evidence having come to light "strongly supporting" the thesis that the husband was domiciled in Hong Kong at the relevant date, it is not proposed to give the parties the warning suggested in para. 3 of No.11,

Personally I should have thought it would have been only fair to give them this warning if there is the slightest doubt concerning the husband's domicile at the material time. Do you think that in our reply we should make this point?

(c) Maddin and Co's. client. We had assumed that, by a process of deduction, Hong Kong would have been able to ascertain the name of Maddin and Co's. client, but as this is not the case we must now, I think, write to them. I suggest this be done as in draft on 53528/330/46 attached, which has been drafted on the assumption that you would be prepared to discuss the case of their client with them.

AW Galsworthy

11.6.47.