Wt. 2944/6/552 9/46 50m. S. & S. Ltd.
C. O.
Mr. Mayle
54185/47
Andio
52.7
13/5/47 Mobut. Way Time
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
DRAFT CODE TELEGRAM
GOVERNOR, HONG KONG, FURTHER ACTION.
Permt. U.S. of S.
Parly. U.S. of S.
Secretary of State
No. 807
Confidential
14.30 hrs
17.5.47
Eve
Your secret despatch No.12 of 25th March.
Internment camp divorces.
1. I am advised that unless both parties were domiciled in Hong Kong when action was proceedings, Ordinance purporting to validate decrees would amount to an attempt to amend Indian and Colonial Divorce Jurisdiction Acts and would consequently be null and void.
Reasons for this advice follow by savingram.
2. In light of the foregoing, consider that fresh proceedings now before Supreme Court in the two cases referred to in paragraph 5 of your secret despatch No.6 should be allowed to take their course whether or not parties were domiciled in Hong Kong when actions were heard; legislation seems unnecessary and undesirable provided it is clear that the parties in Dalziel case were domiciled in Hong Kong at the time.
In that case, Government measure should be introduced forthwith validating decrees; (c) remaining case should be discussed with the solicitors who have raised the question here.
3. Glad to know whether you agree and whether you are able to say if both parties concerned in case (c) were domiciled in Hong Kong at the time.
Wt. 2944/6/552 9/46 50m. S. & S. Ltd.
C. O.
Mr. Mayle
54185/47
Andio
52.7
13/5/47 Mobut. Way Time
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
DRAFT.CODE TELEGRAM
GOVERNOR,
HONG KONG,
FURTHER ACTION.
Permt. U.S. of S.
Parly. U.S. of S.
Secretary of State
No..
807
Confidential
14.30 Er]
17.5·47
Eve
רי
Your secret despatch No.12 of 25th March. ch.
Internment camp divorces.
-husband was 1. I am advised that unless bet partics
Jal. Amin 1
were domiciled in Hong Kong when action was proceedings
WAL PURPORTING band fan Ordinance Apporting to validate
decrees would amount to an attempt to amend
Indian and Colonial divorce Jurisdiction Acts
and would consequently be null and void.
Reasons for this advice follow by savingram.
2. In light of foregoing consider that
fresh proceedings now before Supreme
Court in the two cases referred to in
paragraph 5 of your secret despatch No.6
situation will proommately trigularises
should be allowed to take their course
by foish proceedings
м
whether or not parties were domiciled in- legpilation reems unnecemony and Hong Kong when actione vere heardí
desirab
provided it is clear that te
hurbanus
we
parties' in Dalziel case were domiciled
Hong
at the time.
in Hong Konghwhen setion was heard,
Government measure should be introduced
In that care
forthwith validating decreest
(c) remaining case should be discussed
with the solicitors who have raised the
question here.
3. Glad to know whether you agree and whether
have
a information ist whether husban you fare ablé teʻsay if both parties concerned
in case (c) were domiciled in Hong Kong at
time
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.