437
T
A
domenic
If he commits one of the acts of bankruptcy specified in Section 4(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1883 and the case fulfils the requirements of Section 6. I believe that, having regard to the careful way in which the acts of bankruptcy are defined, and to the safeguards provided by Section 6, such legislation would not be an unreasonable extension to foreigners trading here of the provisions of our Bankruptcy laws.
4.
The method of legislation adopted by the legislature of Hong Kong, although possibly suitable to the peculiar circumstances of that Colony, seems to me insufficient to meet the defects in the law disclosed by the decisions in the Vogeler cases; and I cannot advise that it should be followed as a precedent in other Colonies.
I would suggest, with all respect, that the Draftsman of the Ordinance has scarcely appreciated the exact effect of the decisions. It is, moreover, a singular defect in the Ordinance that it seems to apply only to cases of trading in a firm name; and that the case of a foreigner trading in his own name by an Agent in the Colony is not dealt with.
In my opinion, an enactment to meet the difficulty can be framed in very simple and concise language. The enactment need only provide that "a debtor" in Section 4 shall mean that which in the Appellant's argument in Cooke v. Vogeler it was contended that "a debtor" did mean, namely a person who fulfilled the requirements of sub-section 1(d) of Section 6, and that "a debtor" is not in the case of a foreigner carrying on business in England confined to a person who is personally present in the jurisdiction when