THE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, SEPTEMBER 3, 1909.
Making of analysis.
Vexations
(2.) No Police Officer or other person having any opium seized under the provisions of this Ordinance in his possession for the purpose of retaining the same until forfeiture or until its disposal is determined upon by the Governor or afterwards for the purpose of giving effect to such order of disposition, shall be liable any penalty under this Ordinance by reason of such opium not being accompanied by a certificate under section 39 of this Ordinauce or otherwise.
Procedure.
to
79. The Magistrate may, in his discretion, employ an analyst or other skilled person to report upon any technical point which may be in dispute in any pro- secution under this Ordinance, and may, in his dis- cretion, order the payment of such analyst or skilled person by the party in fault, or out of any fine recover- ed from either party, or out of the proceeds of any forfeiture ordered by such Magistrate,
80. In dismissing any charge or complaint under proceedings. this Ordinance on the ground that such charge or com- plaint is false or frivolous or vexatious, it shall be the duty of the Court to impose on the person bringing such charge or complaint a penalty not exceeding that which the defendant would have incurred if he had been convicted on such charge or complaint, and such penalty shall be over and above any other penalties or liabilities which the said person may have likewise in- curred in respect of his said charge or complaint or of his evidence in support thereof.
Warrant improperly obtained.
Procedure relating to case of seizure of
opium, etc.
Rules as to information and in- formers.
81. Over and above all other liabilities and penalties hich, by this Ordinance or otherwise, any person may become or be subject in respect of his suing out, obtaining, issuing, or executing improperly and with- out sufficient cause any search warrant under this Ordinance, the said person shall be further liable to the penalties specified in section 84, to be enforced and levied as hereinafter provided.
82. In any proceedings before  Magistrate or on appeal to the Supreme Court relating to the seizure of any opium, implements, or other articles, the seizure whereof is authorized by any of the pro- visions of this Ordinance, it shall be lawful for such Magistrate and for the Judges of the said Court, and they are hereby respectively required, to proceed in such cases on the merits only, without re- ference to matters of form and without inquiring into the manner or form of making any seizure, excepting in so far as the manner and form of seizure may be ovidence on such merits.
83.-(1.) Except as hereinafter mentioned, no in- formation laid under this Ordinance shall be admitted in evidence in any civil or criminal proceeding, and no witness shall be obliged to disclose the name or address of any informer or to state any matter which might lead to his discovery, and if any books, documents or papers which are in evidence or liable to inspection in any civil or criminal proceeding contain any entry in which any such informer is named or described or which might lead to his discovery, the Court or Magistrate shall cause all such passages to be concealed from view or to be obliter- ated so far as may be necessary to protect the informer from discovery, but no further.
(2.) But if, in any proceedings before a Magistrate for any offence against any provision of this Ordinance, the Magistrate, after full inquiry into the case, believes that the informer wilfully made in his information a material statement which he knew or believed to be false or did not believe to be true, or if in any other proceeding the Court or Magistrate is of opinion that justice cannot be fully done between the parties thereto without the discovery of the informer, it shall be lawful for the Court or Magistrate to require the production of the original information, and to permit inquiry and require full disclosure concerning the informer.
**
→