LIH. M. Full Court of Appeal, consisting of Judge Sir Peter Grain, Assistant Judge G..W. King, and Mr. Justice Wood (Acting Chief Justice of the Hongkong Supreme Court), on October 21 und 22 heard the appeal of Mrs. Cecil Laval Arnoux Reynolds Toeg against the judgment given by ant" Judge King on July 15 refusing to exercise the dis Proper person to have the custody of the child, but the child was an American citizen, so registered, and the court consequently declined to make an order."
Counsel then proceeded to quote from the Assistant Judge's written Judgment and to show the "sanction of honest matrimony" and the encouragement of immorality" therein referred to were not applica able. He concluded by quoting from the case Apted v. Apted & Bliss in which Lord Merrivale laid down cer-cretion of H. M. Supreme Court in her favour in her petition for the dissolution of her marriage to Mr. David Lionel Toes, a British protected person.
Mr, M. Reader Harris represented the petitioner-appellant; Mr. A. M, Preston appeared for the respondent-respondent, Outlinigg the case for the pet tioner-appellant, Mr. Harris said that the parties were married on June 1, 1923, in the Registrar's Office at Hongkong, the petitioner-appellant being an American citizen, born at Missouri, and the respond. ent-respondent a' British Protected person apparently of no nationality. 31 The peculiar situation in regard to the respondent-respondent's nationality arose through his having been born at Shanghai, of Iraq parent age, a fact which prevented him from obtaining, the full benefits of citizenship. His present was that of a citizen of a British Protectorate—in other words, British protected person. Due to the fact that he could not confer full British nationality on the petitioner-appellant she had remained an American citizen. They separated in 1926, and in 1927 the petitioner-appellant obtained a divorce in the Second Judicial Court of the State of Nevada in and for the County of Washoe, which did not affect the position of the respondent-respondent in British law.
In 1929, as stated in her original petition, "the—petitioner-appellant. committed misconduct in Harbin, the position then being that whereas she, an Amercan citizen, considered herself free in accordance with the laws of her country, she was still married to the respondent-respondent in British law. The Ae-learning of this and after takterest of the community at large. In reply to Mr. Justice Wood he said that he was confident his client intended to lead a moral and happy life if her petition were granted. In roof of this, he asked the court to view a photo which had appeared in local paper which was strong evidence that that happiness was being withald from her.
Replying, Mr. Preston said that although he had no real locus standi ju the case he would like the Court to know that his client had asked H.
Consulate-General for perinisjon to remarry last January, which was refused on the ground that H.
Supreme Court had not dissolved the marriage, and that he had ad~ vised his client against taking any proceedings in H. M, Courts. The position, therefore, was that the Tespondent-respondent was tied to the petitioner-appellant for her natural life; the American Court would most certainly not consider fan application for divorce and the same applied to the Special District Court.
Their Lordships ordered counsel to prepare affidavits stating the conditions pertaining to jurisdiction outlined by them and all pos sible arrangements regarding alia many and the custody of the child.
Counsel read affidavits detailing the arrangements arrived at by the parties regarding alimony Best of fod aces to the child of the marriage, as ordered by the Court, and also submitted documents containing a report of the circumstances leading up to the peal and the present and future'
reamstances of the petitioner-appellant and respondent-respondent.
Judgment was reserved.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.