For years past it has been assumed in this Co-
Tony that the existence of such a partner, neither a British subject nor resident in Hongkong, though carrying on busi- ness in this Colony,in no way affected the Bankruptcy Juris- diction of the Supreme Court in proceedings against the Firm.
Last July, however, the Chief Justice, decided $t the English cases, such as In re A B & Co, Law Reports,
C. 1 2. B. D,p 541, were against that view and that in of sub section (1) d of section 6 of the Bankruptcy nce 1891, the law here was substantially the same as t England.
When the Hongkong Ordinance was passed it was ided to adapt the law to the requirements of the Colony. hamber of Connerce accordingly strongly represented the gity of legislation, and desired that the present Ordi- quared abould be passed to make the law what it had been as-- to be;and the Chief Justice, himself, whom I unoffici-
sulted, also approved of the Bill.
The case I have mentioned went to the House of
d I observe that, last December, the Lord Chancellor, in udgment (see Cooke v The Charles A. Vogeler Company,
Law Reports p 153 says "I am by no means prepared to it might not be a reasonable thing to apply the Eng- of bankruptcy to a trader, who, though himself per- .broad, exercised a trade, through the instrumentality *nt, and possessed assets in this country capable of
ched by bankruptcy administration."). This is what een done in Hongkong. Although more than six weeks wed to elapse between the first and second readings 11 and criticism was invited, not one Chinese or Euro- n raised any objection to the proposed Ordinance.
W. Weigh Gooden an.
Attorney General.
No.
9685
No.
(Subject.)
the 59
901
Ordée 3. 1907
Criminal Law Awend!
Jeb
previous Paper.
~31950-19603-7-2500
equent Paper
submits
Share copies & Library (Minutes.)
Mr Risky hot am Thuren?
su
? Saustion LF,
BM
18/3.
I see nor did and JJ.R 16/0
? so preced
at once E. I
15/141
215
DESPATCH
0.0
Nolid P.M
2573
: