with such offences
which deals only by this words
"
" within or without the Colony in O.4.
In
W. Lockhart's draft. I suggest (in red ink) an amendment
3
similar to that proposed for the
Straits Order in a despatch of 29th ult: (in 19397).
as an
624
Experiment, and reapproved
in Ord. XIV of 1888, s.9 of which
however expressly limits the operation of
This Part II to two
Years or such time as it
be extended hereafter by the Leg.
The word "detain "in the same section wants to be defined as in the Straits Ord. (following Criminal Law Amendment Act,
of freezing through so as to cover detention by detention of the clothes.
This is done in
s. 11 and I have suggested (in pencil)
an amalgamation of these two clauses. In view of minutes
16584/89 on the Whipping
provision Part II. (Special power of the Registrar General) is the most open to objection & difference of opinion. Mr. Lockhart naturally, wishes to have as free a hand as possible, but the legal authorities object to his proposed action (see & prev. papers where the discussed in connection
on 10527187 question with Ord.
9
of 1887). In the annexed draft Mr. Lockhart has mainly followed
the Straits model, as
originally sanctioned (in 6870/86)
As in Part III
of English
Criminal Law Amend. Act, 1885
Council.
Perhaps
a similar limit of time
should be introduced in the Hong Kong
to make the provisions go
case
down the gullet of
more easily?:
the Council
M.Lockhart
thinks (see his private note attached
to 15540) that the provisions in this
Part
of
Ord.
19 of 1889, which he proposes to cut out,
would surely hamper him
render it unworkable.
Part III follows Part III of the Straits Ord. almost exactly. Subsec. (4) however to which the S. of State objected is cut out;
added in front of (2) to make the owner as well as the keeper liable. I think omitted from the Straits Order by mistake; for the definition of
This was
owner
that
occurs