1908 Singapore legal case
The Six Widows Case, officially Re Estate of Choo Eng Choon, 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.
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. The question was initially referred to C. E. Velge, a registrar. 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. Thus, Registrar Velge held that at least one of Choo Eng Choon's marriages had been bigamous.
Velge's decision was appealed on the ground that polygamy is not recognised in Chinese law. The appeal began in October 1905. 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. 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. 
Chief Justice Archibald Fitzgerald Law made his decision on appeal from Velge's determination in 1908. In his decision, Chief Justice Law recognised the legal status of "tsip", reportedly a form of concubinage, in Chinese law. 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. 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.
Notes.
 ;templatestyles src="Reflist/styles.css" / ;