"in Sector 16(8), and there was also because I thought (arent intentions which the Government of Hong Kong had ignored) to abolish personal fees, that it would be better to write about the matter, and I then did not to pay over more fees until I had done so, I delayed writing until Mr. Schroydi returned from Japan and then wrote the letter which His Lordship has seen.
I received the answer (Appy. III) and under the authority therein contained the payments were resumed.
I have no wish to shelter myself either under this authority, or under a plea of ignorance of the existence of the circular despatch. I was guided, of course, in my duty to be decided by the Statute, and to interpret it correctly as far as I could.
Nevertheless, therefore, I can convince His Lordship that the fees which I have received are mine by law, I would prefer to return them, but as the order to Mr. B is to return the fees retained by him, I concur.
I hope that in any event, the above facts may be taken into favourable consideration.
I will now ask leave to submit, as shortly as I can, the reasons which have led me to conclude that under the Statute the fees are still personal fees to be appropriated in the way they have been.
By the authority under which the fee in the Vice Admiralty Court were established, such fees were purely personal. In the words of the Statute (Section 14 of the Act of 1863) they are "fees to be taken by..."
Page 367