was not entered on the Ship's manifest. I suppose the Court took the view that the Magistrate could only forfeit opium (see ss. 35, 776) found in possession of a person who had not the valid certificate required by s. 19(1). The Attorney General is prepared to amend the Ordinance so as to allow forfeiture of opium not entered on the ship's manifest even though it is covered by a permit from the Pawn Farmer, but only proposes to amend it so as to take effect when the farm is next let.
In desp 569/98, it was proposed that certain amendments take effect when their farm is next let, because we did not think it right to interfere with the lawful profits which the Farmer expected under the Law as it stood when he took the farm; profits made by smuggling into China are not lawful profits.
If the Farmer is an accomplice, of course we must assume he cannot object to suffering. Then Strapp's manifest are prima facie evidence that he or his abettors wish to import into China. For this reason, I would ask that s. 3 of Ord. 21 of 1897 should be amended at once by altering the words "shall if forfeited by a magistrate" to "shall be forfeited by a magistrate" [that effect].
I cannot help thinking that Dr. Logan was hardly treated being sent to prison for the costs in the Appeal, and that the Attorney General might have appeared on the appeal, or put forward the best argument that could be in support of the Magistrate's decision, as it seems to me that it is quite arguable that this Magistrate was right. The language of the first part of the clause is emphatic; "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary" and seems to me might signify an intention to empower the Magistrate to use his discretion as to forfeiting or not.
In Johnson's case, the distinction between lawful and unlawful profits is drawn, not...