The Six Widows Case, officially Re Estate of Choo Eng Choon,[a] 12 Straits Settlements Law Reports 120, was a 1908 decision of the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements, affirmed by the appeal division of that court.[b]
Choo Eng Choon, who was a bank comprador, died intestate in Singapore, leaving a large estate. Six claimants alleged that they were widows of the deceased and therefore entitled to a portion of his estate under the Statute of Distribution.[1] The question was initially referred to C. E. Velge, a registrar.[2] Velge found that one "principal wife" had pre-deceased Choo Eng Choon and that after her death another claimant became his "principal wife" and three others were "inferior or secondary wives"; the other two were deemed not to be wives at all.[2] Thus, Registrar Velge held that at least one of Choo Eng Choon's marriages had been bigamous.[3]
Velge's decision was appealed on the ground that polygamy is not recognised in Chinese law.[2] The appeal began in October 1905.[2] The court received expert testimony on Chinese law, including from China's consul-general to Singapore (who testified about the Great Qing Legal Code), attesting that polygamy was impermissible.[1] Litigants in the Six Widows Case unsuccessfully challenged the holding in Re Goods of Lao Leong An (1867), WOC 35, 1 SSLR 1. In that case, Peter Benson Maxwell had recognised the concept of tsip or t'sip and held that a claimant who was a tsip was entitled to a portion of the deceased's estate.[4]
Chief Justice Archibald Fitzgerald Law made his decision on appeal from Velge's determination in 1908.[3] In his decision, Chief Justice Law recognised the legal status of tsip,[5] reportedly a form of concubinage,[6] in Chinese law.[7] However, since he had to render his decision according to English law, which did not recognise any intermediate status between a person's being a wife and not being a wife, Chief Justice Law held that Chinese law did permit polygamy.[7] Chief Justice Law's decision was upheld on further appeal by Chief Justice William Henry Hyndman Jones and Justice Thomas Braddell. Justice Thomas Sercombe Smith dissented.[2]
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).