CHINESE MARRIAGES. 
157 
In 1867 Sir Benson gave his famous decision in the case of 
In the^ goods of Lao Leong An, W.O.C 1 . 35, 1 S.S.L.R. 1, in 
which he decdded that the secondary wife (t’sip) of a Chinese in- 
testate was entitled to an equal share of the intestate’s property 
with the principal wife ( i’sai ). 
In that case it was urged in resisting the claim of the second- 
ary wife (t’sip) that her condition was not that of a wife but a 
concubine, that is to say', that her status was not a legal one at alt 
and that she was without legal rights at all; a mere mistress, in- 
deed. Sir Benson over-ruled the contention and held that she was 
a lawful spouse. He arrived at this result from a perusal of Sir 
George Staunton’s translation of the Chinese Penal Code. It is 
unnecessary to go into his reasoning here as the matter will be 
dealt with later. 
For forty years the Courts acted on this decision and it re- 
mained unchallenged until the famous Six Widows’ case. Before' 
turning to that case there are, however, one or two other decisions 
of the Court that need short consideration. 
In 1887 in the case of Lee Joo Xeo vs. Lee Eng Swee, 4 Kyr 
325, Sir John Goldney held that in distributing the estate of a 
Chinese dying intestate domiciled in the Colony and leaving pro- 
perty in it. the Statute of Distributions is the only rule, and the 
exclusion of females in sharing in such estate according to Chinese 
law and custom will not be recognized. 
It will be convenient, therefore, to observe here that the law 
of this Colony as it now stands gives to the widows, principal and 
secondary, the widow’s share under the Statute to divide equally 
amongst them, whereas Chinese law would give them merely a 
right to maintenance. Again under Chinese law female next of 
kin are excluded, save in exceptional circumstances, from any 
share in the estate, though they may have claims to maintenance, 
whereas by the law of this Colony they take equally with males. 
Our law is, therefore, very dearly neither English nor Chinese 
law but a mixture of the two. 
In 1890 the question was raised in Penang before Mr. Justice 
Wood in the case of Regina vs Yeok Boon Leng, 4 Ky: 630, as 
to whether a Chinese could be convicted of bigamy. The accused 
was acquitted because the prosecution omitted to bring evidence 
tjiat by Chinese law or custom the second marriage was void by 
reason of its taking place in the lifetime of the first wife. 
In 1901 the same question arose at Malacca in the case of 
The King vs Sim Boon Lip, 7 S.S.L.R. 4, with most unfortunate 
results to the accused who was sentenced to three months’ simple 
imprisonment. The accused was at first acquitted before Sir Archi- 
bald Law by a majority of four to three, but this majority being 
insufficient, a new trial was ordered which duly came on before 
Sir M illiam Hynclman- Jones. It would appear, though it is not 
R. A. Soc., No. 83, 1921. 
