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.
