Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 3)

Bibliographic data

Multivolume work

Identifikator:: 1896933912

Document type:: Multivolume work

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Press

Year of publication:: 1912-

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Volume

Identifikator:: 1896935311

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-237672

Document type:: Volume

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 3

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: XII Seiten, Seiten 1102-1670

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part V. Imperial control over Dominion administration and legislation

Collection:: Economics Books

1244 ADMINISTRATION AND LEGISLATION [PART V Orange River Colony, and in the Transvaal? On the other hand, the Indian Divorce Act? appears clearly in terms to sontemplate the divorce of persons not strictly speaking domiciled, and the Order in Council of May 1, 1890, estab- lishing divorce in St. Helena, does not regard the law of domicile. The laws of the East Africa Protectorate (No. 12 of 1904), British Central Africa (No. 5 of 1905), and Uganda ‘No. 15 of 1904), which are based on the law in India, are more cautious in their wording, though they contain, as does the Indian Act, the vague word ‘ reside >. But it is also expressly provided that the jurisdiction shall be exercised in accordance with the law applied in matrimonial proceedings in the High Court of Justice in England, and that would probably incorporate the modern practice. Of course it is always possible to validate in the United Kingdom a divorce which is contrary to the law of domicile, but only by Act of Parliament, as in the case of Malone's Divorce (Valid action) Bill, 1905.4 It would, however, be obviously undesirable to insist on pressing for the maintenance of restrictions on divorce, sven though based on domicile, for no Imperial interests can be said ultimately to be involved. On the other hand, it is as clear that in the interests of the persons concerned the granting of divorces which would be of doubtful validity out- side the places in which they are granted is utterly objec- sionable, and therefore Dominion Parliaments are evidently anxious to avoid the granting of divorces in such cases. It may be pointed out that an awkward position could easily arise in England if a man obtained a divorce in a Colony without being domiciled therein, for a second marriage would, ander English law, expose him to the penalty of bigamy if ever C. T.R. 299 ; Wright v. Wright, (1903) 13 C. T. R. 881; ex parte Levy, 16 C.T. R.1041. But see Jooste v. Jooste. 17 C. T. R. 385; [19061 O.R. C. 7; 19071 O. R. C. 107. t Potgicter v. Potgieter, [1904] O. R. C. 60: ex varte Steward, [1907] 0.R.C. 37. * 3 Sth. Afr. Rep. 76 ; Murphy v. Murphy, [1902] T. 8, 179. * No. iv. of 1869, s. 2. 11905] A, C. 814. Cf. Sinclair's Divorce Bill, [1899] A. C. 469.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 3)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation