1246 ADMINISTRATION AND LEGISLATION [pamTV
a deceased husband’s brother by a New Zealand Act of 1900
(No. 72)! By alaw of the Dominion of Canada of 1890 (c. 36)
it is enacted that all laws prohibiting marriage between a man
and a daughter of his deceased wife’s sister, where no law relat-
ing to consanguinity is violated, are hereby repealed both as
to past and future marriages; this is also so in South Aus-
tralia. At one time it was doubted if in New South Wales
there were any rules as to prohibited degrees, as it was held
that the English law (28 Henry VIII. c. 7) had not been in-
troduced into the state. But this is now decided otherwise.?
The marriages with deceased wives’ sisters were the cause
of a good deal of difficulty ; their effect in England was that,
though they were recognized in the case of persons domiciled
in a Colony as valid for all other purposes, they did not confer
any right to land, or of course to a title, in the case of an
intestacy ; the case actually happened, though naturally
it was not a common one : 3 but beyond that there was the
feeling that the marriage was not quite proper inasmuch
as the marriage in England would not have been valid, and
English people who went to the Colonies and contracted such
marriages while not domiciled there found their marriages
absolutely invalid in England.* Moreover, the history of
these marriages showed that their invalidity was partly arti-
ficial, being, as a matter of fact, due to an Act of 1835 which
caused them to be absolutely instead of merely voidable as
before by action brought in the lifetime of both parties.
[n 1896 the Agents-General petitioned the Government, in
1897 the Premiers at the Conference brought the matter up,
and in 1904 the Government of the Commonwealth made
an appeal, while in 1898 and 1900 a bill to remedy the situa-
tion passed a second reading in the Lords, and on July 13,
1905, Lord James of Hereford pressed for action, but in vain.
The result was the passing of an Act in 1906 to recognize for
! See Consyl. Stat., 1908, No. 113, ss. 44, 45. Proposed also by
Mr. Scaddan in 1911 in Western Australia.
* Miller v. Major, 4 C. L. R. 219, affirming the decision of the Supreme
Tourt, 6 8. R. (N. 8. W.) 24, Cf, Parl. Pap., H. C. 144, 145, 1894, p. 38.
Cf. Hammick, Law of Marriage, p. 253.
* Cf. Sottomayor v. De Barros, 3 P. D. 1; Dicey, Conflict of Laws,* p. 631.
