SPROULE J. On 16th November, 1923, I ordered, inter alia, an inquiry before the Registrar whether Khoo Hun Tee was a legitimate son of the Settlor, Khoo Thean Tak.

On 6th June, 1924, the Registrar held that he was not. This finding was appealed from, the appeal eventually reaching the Privy Council. Their Lordships, on 23rd March, 1926, set aside the Registrar's Certificate and directed a re-opening of the inquiry. Khoo Hooi Leong v. Khoo Hean Kwee [1926] A.C. 529.

After full inquiry, Mr. Registrar Forrer, by a Certificate dated 17th September, 1927, filed on 20th September, 1927, decided that Khoo Hun Tee was a legitimate son of Settlor.

The issue now comes before me on further consideration and upon a summons to very the Certificate, taken out by the representative of the beneficiaries under Settlor's Will and adjourned into Court for argument.

There is no dispute now that Khoo Hun Tee was son of Settlor by Petronella Gaudoin, nee Baptist, nor that she was the "Christian woman" mentioned in Settlor's Will.

Petronella's history was that before her sixteenth birthday she married Richard Gaudoin, on 19th April, 1847. They had issue, a daughter Emilie, born on 25th August, 1848, and baptized on 3rd September, 1848. Less than five years later, and in or before May, 1853. Petronella's connection with Settlor began. Emilie's baptismal certificate would seem to show that Gaudoin was alive in September, 1848. There is no evidence whether he was alive or dead in May, 1853.

I fix on May, 1853, as being some nine months prior to 22nd January, 1854, the date of Khoo Hun Tee's birth.

On 26th August, 1856, Petronella gave birth to a daughter, who on 15th September, 1856, was baptized as "Velelmina Baptist, illegitimate daughter of (Nini)Baptist", her father's name not being given. "Nini" was a pet name of Petronella.

On 13th March, 1857, Khoo Hun Tee was baptized into the Roman Catholic Church as "Edwardum filium illegitimum Petronella Baptist, circiter quattuor annos natun".

On 5th February, 1861, Petronella, describing herself as widow of Richard Gaudoin, married one Cornelius according to Christian rites. Later, she is said to have married one Phipps. She died in 1886.

She was a Eurasian and a Catholic, of Penang domicile, who for one brief spell in her life appears to have ignored or defied her Church but thereafter returned into its fold.

Her son was so far under its sway that in November, 1874, when he married a Christian Chinese woman, under Christian rites, he described himself as illegitimate son of Khu Thean Tek and Petronella Godyne. His second son by that marriage was Alfred Godyne, alias Khoo Hooi Leong, the Claimant now before the Court, who asserts Khoo Hun Teo's legitimacy.

The Registrar has found-

(a) that Petronella was a t'sip, or lawful secondary wife, or Settlor; and

(b) That, even if she were not, Yet Khoo Hun Tee was legitimized by subsequent recognition by his father and the family.

As for the finding that Petronella was proved or must be presumed to have been t'sip or lawful secondary wife of Settlor, I cannot find any good ground for that in law or in fact.

I take the law as to Chinese secondary marriage to require in every case that the woman should be soluta or free to contract marriage. No particular form of ceremony of marriage is required. But if there be no acceptance by the t'sai (or principal wife) and worship of the ancestors ab initio, the Court can nevertheless presume marriage from habit and repute; or from the woman's subsequent recognition and acceptance as a t'sip by the family, almost invariably earned by her having borne a man-child.

But in addition to the woman's capacity to contract marriage, there must always be the element of permanence in the union, of fact and intention, upon which to found long habit and repute or retrospective recognition. A liaison of a casual and purely temporary character can never be the foundation of presumptive marriage unless redeemed by su