MURRAY-AYNSLEY, J In this case the plaintiff claims to be the widow of one Yap Swee. Up to a point the facts are clear. She was for some years admittedly a tsip of the deceased and bore two children, a boy and a girl, by him. In March, 1936, she left the house of the deceased in Menglembu and did not return. It is alleged by the defendants that thereafter all relations were broken off and that the plaintiff was divorced. The plaintiff on the other hand, avers that relations continued until the end of the life of the deceased. The principal issue is thus whether the plaintiff was divorced.

To decide this it is necessary to consider--

(a) whether according to Chinese custom as applied in the Federated

Malay States divorce is possible;

(b) what form does such a divorce take, and

(c) did in point of fact a divorce take place according to such form.

If any divorce took place it must obviously have been in a non-judicial form as no divorce was granted or could have been granted by any Court in the Federated Malay States.

It was admitted by both sides for the purposes of this case that the deceased was domiciled in Perak.

In the first instance consideration must be given to the question as to the extent to which Chinese custom has the force of law in the Federated Malay States. For a considerable period the Perak Order in Council No. 23 of 1893 gave statutory effect to certain Chinese customs or alleged customs therein set out.

No similar provision was made for the other States, but in the absence of any written law effect was given to part of this Order in Council in other States. In the case of Yam Tham Thai v Low Hup Neo 1 FMSLR 383 an explanation is given of the attitude of the Courts. See also Yap Kon Keow v Low Hup Neo 6 FMS LR 13.

During the period 1899-1932 the Secretary for Chinese Affairs Enactment gave that officer jurisdiction to deal with cases of a domestic nature according to Chinese custom.

Both these have been repealed and nothing has been substituted.

In dealing with Chinese custom, there is no question of dealing with a body of law such as Hindu or Mohammedan Law nor is there anything so definite as the custom of a manor. It is more in the nature of a trade custom, the recognition of the habits of a particular body of people in dealing with particular matters. Where it can be shown that the Chinese follow settled practices the Courts will give effect to those practices where no provision is made in local legislation, so far as these practices are of a character, not being contrary to reason or natural justice, to which effect can be given with propriety.

Until recently no system of law had been applied in the Federated Malay States except so far as Mohammedan Law might be applicable. Enactment 3 of 1937, however, made English Common Law applicable "so far as the circumstances of the Federated Malay States and its inhabitants permit and subject to such qualifications as local circumstances render necessary".

I think it is clear that the question of marriage is one in which the English Common Law is inapplicable (otherwise no one who did not believe in the Apostolic Succession could get married at all), and therefore if this matter is regulated at all, it must in the case of the Chinese population be regulated by custom.

In order to ascertain Chinese custom, there are a few decisions in cases in the Federated Malay States and in the Colony. Apart from this it is a question of fact to be proved by the evidence of witnesses. There are also certain books which have been cited in this and other cases and which have acquired a certain degree of recognition.

In addition to the custom of the Chinese, there has been in China a body of written law. This was known as the Ta Ching Lu Li. Certain parts of it are given in translation in the work by Jamieson which was cited before me. In the form of Stauntons translation