A
THE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 4TM FEBRUARY, 1880.
MINUTE BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
Lesa lind no evidence
101
upon these papers to sustain a criminal prosecution and i am at a loss what 6, bring. If His Excellency will specify the offence which he considers has been committed, hall have my inmediate attention. In my opinion, parties entering into a transaction of this my, ca England would in no way bring themselves within the operation of the criminal law. I do wei Orlinances 4 of 1865, Par. 51, or 2 of 1875, the only local legislation that I know of on An adject, apply to the circumstances of this case.
gave
Excellency may remember the case of Dr. EITEL some months ago in which I similar ras to the necessity of u habeas corpus to decide the rights of parties to the custody of a child.
G. PHILLIPPO.
21st June, 1878.
MINUTE BY HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR.
I felt no difliculty in acting on the Attorney General's advice in the case to which he refers, of the girl who had been brought to the London Mission House, the daughter of a deceased Christian, but hind by another relative of doubtful character. This case is not similar. The allegation is made by the father that his child is forcibly detained by a man who admits he had purchased her, and who t& father alleges is about taking the child out of the Colony for the purpose of selling her.
Such is the allegation made by the father of the child in his first petition of the 24th of May, and again repeated in his petition of the 14th June. The father's evidence to that effect may or may not I trustworthy. But, if it should turn out to be true, the Attorney General in declining to comply with my instructions of the 19th June, will have incurred a grave responsibility.
J. POPE HENNESSY. 26th June, 1878.
MINUTE BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
I did not refer to Dr. EITEL's ease as being exactly similar to the present one, but only for the
■lvbe given to His Excellency on that occasion. In many respects however I think it was similar, as
that case,
if I remember rightly, the mother claimed the child and the widow of the deceased was diged to give her up upon being refunded a certain amount which she stated had been spent on the kal. I am not aware that I have ever declined to comply with His Excellency's "instructions," I ly wished to know in what respect His Excellency considered the law had been broken before I dostol any specific charge to be brought. Upon perusal of His Excellency's Minute of 26th June, 1*78, I gathered that His Excellency considered that a charge could be substantiated against Leung Asstr of forcibly detaining the child under Ordinance 4 of 1865, Par. 51, with a view to selling her in we place out of the Colony. I thereupon immediately instructed Mr. Suaur, the Crown Solicitor, to er the father of the child in order to get a statement from him upon which to found an application to Magistrate for a Summons or Warrant. Mr. Sharp has seen both the father and mother of the child goll forward herewith the statements made by them to him. If His Excellency thinks upon perusing these statements that any case can be substantiated against Leung A-TSIT under Section 51 of Ordi- Panev 4 of 1875 (taking into consideration also the proviso at the end of the Section which directs that to person claiming any right to the possession of a child shall be liable to be prosecuted by virtue Besed on account of the getting possession of such child or taking such child out of the lawful pos- wvbu od „by person having the lawful charge thereof) or upon any other charge, indeference to His Followey's view, I will at once instruct the Crown Solicitor to make an application to a Magistrate · Era Stammons.
His Excellency will observe now that there is no evidence, not even hearsay, accord- ing to the mother's statement of any intention of selling the child even if we could prosecute for a bare rtetation.
I have no hesitation in repeating my deliberate opinion that in a case of this sort the Magistrate to jurisdiction—that at the most he could only use a little moral pressure and that if His Excellency to suppress the practice of parties adopting children or taking them as servants on giving a mity to the parents, by the institution of criminal proceedings against parties obtaining possession libiren from their parents, under such circumstances it will be necessary to introduce special pro-
s for the purpose.
In the munerous cases which have appeared in England where the recovery of a child has been · *ght the proceedings have always been by habeas corpus and no instance can be found of proceedings bang taken under 24 and 25 Vict., C. 100, Par. 56, corresponding to our Ordinance 4 of 1865, Par. 51, je de punishment of a person to whom the parents have voluntarily transferred a child, even, where
for consent is subsequently revoked and the child is detained as in the present case.
Cl. July, 1878.
G. PHILLIPro.
Attorney General.