CO129-610-5 Marriages solemnized in Stanley Camp during the Japanese occupation and subsequent legislation for divorce 14-2-1947 - 27-6-1947 — Page 7

ath Assuming parties wore ust

at the Chin domiciled in

trong Kong,

10.

7

Even if it were possible to say that the Court was properly constituted and capable of lawfully exercising jurisdiction, the question may arise as to whether the provisions of the Hong Kong (Non-Domiciled Parties) Divorce Rules 1936, made under the Act of 1926, were, or could be,complied with. See for example, Rules 3, 4, 20 and 25. Any Hong Kong Ordinance repugnant to the Rules woul likewise b♣ ultra vires.

11.

I think therefore that we must put this point of view to the Governor, asking for his further views. If there are no children of the subsequent marriage in the case mentioned in (2), the best course might be for further divorce proceedings followed by re-marriage to take place, though there might be difficulties. In the remaining case, where we have had correspondence with Solicitors in this country (see 53528/330) I think the best thing to do is to explain fully to the Solicitors, enquiring of them whether the parties were domiciled. It seems highly probable that they were not domiciled in Hong Kong.

12.

I do not think we should write a long letter, but that we should refer to the second paragraph of (9) on the above file, and ask them to come and see

me.

مسمد

е

18. 4. 47.

Mr. Roberts-Wray

MARRIAGES

I would propose to send a telegram on this question (in view of the Governor's request in paragraph 6 of No.1), giving the substance of paragraphs 2 and 3 of your minute and agreeing to the introduction of legislation, subject to the substitution of the safeguard you suggest for the proviso in, the draft Ordinance forwarded with No.16 on 54185746. (I presume that your safeguard should replace the whole of the proviso and not merely that part of it which we suggested should be omitted.)

DIVORCE

/

I would deal with this separately.

Would you

see any objection to our replying to the Governor by cable that we are disposed to agree to the introduction of legislation validating decrees absolute, provided that each of the parties concerned in the 4 cases was domiciled in Hong Kong at the time of the divorce, and asking for confirmation of this. (I presume that confirmation is the right word to use here, since the Chief Justice should presumably have known the limits of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Hong Kong when he heard the cases.) We might also ask how the proposed validating legislation would affect the proceedings which are now taking place before the Supreme Court, referred to in paragraph 5 of No.1.

If you agree to action on both matters as proposed above, would you kindly send the file to

Miss Whyte