Lai's Office (11401),
127/11
Sir J. Rogers
Molland
I am happy to remember,
But it was reported that the High Court could not try cases committed as they thought there was piracy in the High Seas.
No objection was raised to the provision of Ordinance No. 9 of 1866 so far as related cases fell within the jurisdiction of the Court.
That is to say where piracy was committed, it conformed, and therefore the present Ordinance was sanctioned.
Section ... to sanctioning the present Ordinance under certain Guerra.
To the Chief ...
A Supreme Court to try the 365 offences mentioned in the former Ordinance, though with a Jury (Sect. 3)
Mandate Sect. I. Whether to dispense with a Jury in cases like Hugh (Sect. I understand the opinion of the Law Officers not to dispense with a Jury in the Local Legislature)
Sanction & is that clear?
20/11
I think the answer of the Law Officers, taken with the terms of the 1st question, show that the Law Officers were of the opinion that a Jury could not be dispensed with in cases of Piracy on the High Seas or committed acts of Piracy according to British Law.
Those are the cases referred to in the 7th question.
Sir E. Rogers, I assume the case was drafted upon the new Ordinance.
7/12
Cut 21
So there is still no conclusion with Vicary Whitley on the scope?
03/12
& is it clear that the abolition, in Holland?
By 6/12
Page 365
MY THE
28/11
...
Page ...
WTH
who have Tiracqorlighter tam
...