For Hausford
with reference to
I entries and interpretation of Sect 34 of
1862.
The Chief Justice may
at his
discretion (M.79
from time to time
to be tried when the purpose of the Summing Court is such that cases under the power
Cannot be tried.
point him by sect. 34. But it could not have
this in
been intended - and why then by the
A
preamble (which
direct causes
the makers
have been called "a key to open the mind of
the Act the chiefs which they intended to redress")
at any time when he wanted to know that the CT, could
my
habent, call upon the Summing Judge to sit for
June.
of harmless, from some
this in what is true has practically
owing to the owing This is not to relieve the Chief Justice
of his Judicial Duty
but formally such duties.
NTR
25.5.69
it is clear that
Mr. A. Robinson took the law as it was
taken.
incepote / 5072
2022 17x) Mu
Law no reason & entreaten
matter which-
Mr. H
incter &
5050 Strong Kong..
I should inform the
Governor in reply to this despatch, that Lord Granville had carefully considered the various questions raised by it, and that he approved of his decision with respect to the refusal of vacation applied for by Mr. Imale, on full salary,
out that,
first of all point
that, while all
regulations
as
analysts of to vacation and leaves of absence
Fort. L
must be held to be subject to the requirements of the Public Service, it is denied that the rule laid down in Art:133
Art 133 of the Colonial Regulations, "under which Mr. Imate asks for 4 months vacation (with a month extra) on full salary,
applies only to Civil Officers, and that as a Judicial Functionary the only vacation which he can claim is for the period during
which his Courts do not sit.
In the next place it appears
that