450
with two other documents, versions of the short- hand writer's notes, which I can only suppose are put upon the file for the purpose of challenging the summing up. The affidavit is made by an officer of the Court, no application having been made to the Court for permission to avail themselves of the services of the official.
Mr. Sharp-May I say something? The Chief Justice-Two documents are put npon the file which are the official property of the Court and which have no business whatever
to be in the possession of anyone else. The first is the summing up which follows the copy of my notes in which a series of corrections are made in red ink, which I infer are corrections which I myself made on the first draft.'
Mr. Sharp-I understand that is so. I have not seen it.
The Chief Justice I cannot conceive what right parties have to take documents without the permission of the Court. These documents are the official property of the Court.
Mr. Sharp I think it was understood there was permission.
The Chief Justice-There has been no appli. cation made to me for permission,
Mr. Sharp-Application was made to the Registrar.
The Chief Justice. The only person who can give authority to make use of official docn-
ments is the Chief Justice.
Mr. Sharp-I uuderstand application was made to the Registrar, who, I think, is generally supposed to express your Lordship's views on these points, aud consent was obtained from the Registrar. It was furnished by the Registrar
and we made the alterations from that.
The Chief Justice-The printed copy should be on the file.
Mr. Sharp-I will take the printed copy. The Chief Justice-It is a most extraordinary document.
Mr. Sharp-I understand this was not known until a few days ago, and that the only copy of the summing up was that which we received from the Registrar.
The Chief Justice-It is a private document. It has no business to be in anybody's possession. The next thing that an affidavit is obtained from an officer of the Court and another copy set up for the purpose of challenging the official copy.
Mr. Sharp-I think your Lordship is under a misapprehension. As I understand it, this printed copy was not knowu to exist until quits recently.
The Chief Justice--The printed copy has been in the Registry for the last two months.
Mr. Sharp-We did not know that, The Chief Justice-I thought it was under. stood from the very first that all these d· ou. .ments, these official copies, could be obtained at the Registry. I had this copy in my hands certainly two months.
Mr. Sharp-I can only repeat that we went to the Registry and got a copy.
The Chief Justice-All I can say is, it is a very grave mistake on the part of the Registrar. That, however, does not explain the fact that an officer of the Court has been asked to make an affidavit setting out another opy of the sum- ming up for, I suppose, the object of challeng. ing it.
Mr. Sharp-We quite accept the print now we know that it exists. We are gɔing to argus on the print.
The Chief Justice-I want to explain that it is absolutely improper.
Mr. Sharp-We take your explanation- The Chief Justica-Forgive me. It is absolutely improper, if the judge's summiog op is to be challenged, to go behind his back and get an affidavit from an officer of the Court.
|
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
the Court. I cannot understand there being any misconception. These two documents-the affidavit by the shorthand writer and this other copy-must be taken off the file,
Mr. Sharp-There is not the smallest objection.
The Chief Justice-It is not a question of objection at all. I am saying that very impro- per proceedings have been adopted.
Mr. Sharp The impropriety is only on the Registrar, who furnished us with the copy which
we have put upon the file,
Mr. J. W. Lee Jones, Deputy Registrar, made a statement to the Chief Justice relative to the Registrar, but this could not be heard
from the Press seat.
The Chief Justice-That applies to one doou. shorthand writer which has been put in without ment. I am referring to the affidavit of the the authority of the Registrar.
Mr. Sharp-May we ask for direction in the future? Supposing in auother case we wish to have a certified transcription of notes, is not the proper person to certify the shorthand
writer ?
He
The Chief Justice-No, certainly not. is not an officer of the Court except so far as he is authorised by the Court to take notes. I thought averybody understood that. We could not ask the Government for sufficient money to provide us with a shorthand writer absolutely. when required by the Court. We have sufficient funds for a shorthand writer
Mr. Sharp-If outside that he takes notes- speculatively it may be-is he not the proper person to certify that that note is a correct note?
The Chief Justice-No, not when he is not authorised by the Court; if he takes any notes he does so as a newspaper correspondent.
Mr. Sharp-1s not a newspaper correspondent the proper person to certify the correctness of the evidence?
The Chief Justica-As against the judge's note of evidence?
Mr. Sharp-Yes. I think that that is the practice at home.
*2.
The Chief Justice-That is a question which we osa consider and put before the Court in the usual way. If the judge's notes are to be challenged and if you want to put a newspaper reporter in the box, then well and guod,
Mr. Sharp-I think the proper course would be not to put him in the box, but to file an affidavit. I am not speaking of the summing up. I submit that is the only way we can bring the notes of evidence properly before you. It may properly be used as supplementary to the judge's notes. To challenge is not the word I should
use:
The Chief Justice-That is another matter altogether. If that is to be done, let the proper procedure be followed. As to the other, it is quite outside the point.
Mr. Sharp--At the time we did not know there would be any proper copy before the Court.
The Puisne Judge-That does not explain the third one. You get a copy from the Registrar and put in another one as well.
The application was then heard.
Mr. Slade took a preliminary objection that the application was out of time.
After discussion, Mr. Blade withdrew his objection.
(Mr. Sharp, in opening, said the grounds of their application for a new trial were that the judge in the first instance misdirected the jury in respect of a number of mattere, siso that the verdict was against the weight of the evideno. and further upon the ground of the discovery
[Jane 25, 1906.
Thursday, June 21st.
IN BANKRUPTCY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE THE Full Court.
APPLICATION- FOR A RE-TRIAL. The hearing of the application was made for a re-trial of tho issue between the Official Receiver and Woug Ka-cheang to decide whether the latter was or was not a partner in the Lai Hing Bank at the time of its bankruptoy was resumed. Mr. E. H. Sharp, K.C., and Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C.. instructed by Mr. G. K. Hall Bratton (of Messrs. Brutton and Hett), appeared for the appellants, and Mr. M.W. Slade, instructed by Mr. R. A. Harding,
which he had taken from the file the previous appeared for the repondents.
The Chief Justice, referring to the papers
day, said he had since learned that the printed copy of the summing up was in the hands of the appellants two days before the other copies were put on the file.
Mr. Sharp said he could not explain until Mr. Brutton had consulted his diary,
Mr. Sharp then continued his address, still dwelling on the ground that the jury had been misdirected and analysing the summing up in support of his contention.
Mr. Pollock said he was not prepared to go any further than his learned friend had gone, as he had dealt very fully with all material points, but he would like a li tle time to con. sider other points on which he would like to address the Court, and asked for an adjourn ment until Monday.
The Chief Justice said that to shorten the proceedings on Monday, it would be and well if the Court were to consider just on what points they would like to hear counsel further, and intimated that they would inform counsel; as to what those points were on Saturday morn- ing
The Puisne Judge-As far as I am person- ally concerned, I don't want to hear any further arguments on any point.
The Court was adjourned.
HONGKONG GENERAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
Minutes of a monthly meeting of the general committee of the Hongkong General Chamber of Commerce held in the Chamber Room, St. George's Building, on Wednesday, 9th May, 1906, at 4 p.m. Present-Hon. Mr. E. A. Hewett (Chairman), Mr. A. G. Wood, (Vice-Chairman), Hon. Mr. C. W. Dickson, Messrs. A. Haupt, D. E. Law, G.H. Medhurst, N. A. Siebe J. R. M. Smith, H. E. Tomkins and A. R. Low (Secretary).
MINUTES.
The minutes of the monthly meeting held on 4th ultimo and of the special meetings held 19th and 26th ultimo were read and confirmed.
од
METRIC SYSTEM OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
The following letter was read:
Oxford Court, Cannou Street, London, -
16th March, 19 6. The Secretary. Chamber of Comm+ru
Hongkong.
METRIC WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. Sir, l'he movement in favour of the adop tion of the metric weights and measures originated with the Chambers of Commerce of Great Britain and later nearly every Colonial Chamber of Commerce has shown approval of the proposed reform.
The Decimal Association, which, as you way remember, was organised by the London Chamber of Commerce, has lately gained very considerable strength, indeed the com- head-mittee hare decided upon the introduction of a;
Bill in the House of Commons.
of new matters of evidence since the trial which Mr. Sharp-There is no intention to chal- could not have been adduo-d then. Counsel lenge your Lordship's summing up. We take addressed the Court at length on the first your print as official. That was our intentioning, that the jury had been misdirected, before we came into Court,
The Chief Justice—I am objecting entirely to the procedure in getting au affidavit from an officer of the Court filed without the per- mission of the Court.
Mr. Sharp-That is a subtle question. We did not kuow that he was an officer of the Court
The Chief Justice—I have explained at least half-a-dozen times. When he is authorised to ¦ take a note by the Court then he is an officer of
i
After tiffin the Chief Justice said he had consulted with the Paisne Judge and they found no reason for admitting the shorthand writer's notes as evidence.
Mr. Sharp then asked his Lordship to note the fact that those notes were by the man whom the Chief Justice had appointed as official
reporter.
The Chief Justice replied that he had every confidence in the shorthand writer.
The hearing was adjourned.
・
In this position of affairs, I feel sure that you will agree with me that it is very important to retain the full measure of support which Chambers of Commerce accorded to the movement in the past.
I fear that lately there has been a falling off in the determination shown by Chambers of Commerce to carry out this reform and perhaps. this has, in a messure, been due to a feeling that the conduct of the campaign might now be left to the Decimal Amociation.
Page 10Page 11
ཨེཨཱ ཨི ཨི ཨཱ པཱ ཡདྷ