162
1 may refer to what occurred last Monday
in connection with the Judgment which I gave in the case of Wong's extradition, in order to show how inconvenient this custom is. The case was argued on Saturday; as the matter was pressing i thought it advisable to give Judgment on Monday, and therefore devoted considerable time to writing it on Sunday. There was no time to have a fair copy made, and even if there had been a clerk in the Registry would have had to be detailed for the purpose, and he would have been taken from his ordinary work for the whole day. I therefore delivered it from a very rough draft in which were many corrections and interlineations. I must point out that if an unwritten judgment is delivered from the Bench there is possibility of keeping an accurate record of it,
as there is no shorthand writer attached to the Court.
The matter being of some public interest
the morning papers were anxious to publish it on the following morning. And 1 must point out that if the newspapers did not
take sufficient interest in the proceedings in Court to publish the judgments there would be absolutely no record of them avail-' -able to the parties and the public. As however there is no
other record the Ear is compelled to resort to the unsatisfacto- -ry practice of referring in Court to these unofficial reports
a * of cases. The "Daily Press" having obtained my manuscript typewritten copy was made which was brought to me for correction. Subsequently the "Morning Fost" having failed to get permission to use this copy also had access to the manuscript. I was detained in Chambers till past 5 trying to put matters straight for both newspapers, but even then it was not possible for the judgment to appear without my revising the proof. Both proofs came up to the Peak hotel at 10.30 F.M. and i had barely time to correct them and let the messengers leave the Peak by the
lest