542
No. 166.
THE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 17TH JULY, 1880.
GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION.
>
A competitive examination for the vacant posts of Usher and Assistant Usher in the Magistracy, will be held at noon on Wednesday the 4th August, at the Council Chamber, Government Offic
Any person in the Colony can compete for the appointment, provided he satisfies the of Examiners,-
1st. That he is within the prescribed limits of age.
2nd. That he is free from any physical defect or disease which would be likely to interfere with
the proper discharge of his duties.
3rd. That his character is such as to qualify him for public employment, and
4th. That he possesses the requisite knowledge and ability to enter on the discharge of his official
duties.
The salaries of the vacant posts are, Usher, $45, and Assistant Usher, $40 a month, without quarters. Candidates should send in their names, with any certificates or testimonials which they may possess, to the Honourable M. S. TONNOCHY, before noon on Monday the 2nd August.
1
The limits of age for these appointments are 21 to 40.
The following are the subjects for the present examination, and the number of marks allotted to each:-
1. Exercise to test handwriting..
2. Reading aloud..
3. Writing from dictation.
4. Arithmetic...
5. Viva voce examination to test knowledge of English
6. Chinese, spoken and written......................
Marks.
50
50
50
50
100
50
50
7. Acquaintance with any other modern spoken language.
For each language
The Examiners will lay before the Governor the results of the examination, and His Excellency will select the persons to be appointed.
By Command,
Colonial Secretary's Office, Hongkong, 16th July, 1880.
FREDERICK STEWART,
Acting Colonial Secretary.
No. 167.
GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION.
The following Documents are published for general information.
FREDERICK STEWART,
Acting Colonial Secretary.
By Command,
Colonial Secretary's Office, Hongkong, 16th July, 1880.
INTERPRETATION IN THE SUPREME COURT.
(C.S.O. No. 1592).
HONGKONG, 30th June, 1880.
SIR, I have the honour to recommend that the Interpreters of the Supreme Court be officially requested, through the proper Authority, to be careful as to the way in which they render into Chinese the legal terms used in Court.
The principal reason for this recommendation is, that I happened to notice lately that one of the Interpreters in the Supreme Court, on the occasion of the Chief Justice's passing a sentence of penal servitude on a prisoner, used, in interpreting that sentence, for the words "penal servitude" worl which, in Chinese, have no other meaning but that of " transportation to the frontier," and on question- ing the Interpreter privately about it, I was informed that the other Interpreters in the Supreme Court use the same wrong term and have been doing so for years past. I presume that the term in question was in vogue before transportation was abolished, and retained ever since. But although the term "penal servitude" has a wide meaning, the Chinese term used by the Interpreters means deportation, and nothing else, and excludes detention in a gaol.
The same inaccuracy pervades the system of rendering other legal terms on the Supreme Court Interpreters, who, in my opinion, need a warning to be careful.
part
of the