72
atodrieri”
roxano”,Juod erm* 112
IT
.800£,rednovoll .NJVI
.LI
12.
Y.
339
Chambers,
Supreme Court, Hongkong,
21st.November, 1908.
Nom riw embelwortios of monod eft evad I -motuł
Sir
*?
Tadrowok .Atal to rastel a'vons£{anxA ro¥ moltomt̃aldna
nd [flv oð bestuter miera la sousbnoqaerros ert dadd am goin
.Itomod to aids" erit no blal
(+9to ovsí I
JJ0331T
摩
.* (.b2)
.eoldant telɗo
9.X,braquæ dotreber? vida
anoxano to zomeron
In Your Excellency's letter of 2nd. NovemTM
-bar, which I have already acknowledged, a letter is enclosed
from the Secretary of State dated 18th. September, in which the
Secretary of State expressed the opinion that no case has been
trust made out for appointing a second Puisne Judge. I am that this
does not mean that the Secretary of State declines to accept the
statement of the Chief Justice that he has to do the work of
two Judges. That is a statement of fact, which any practitioner
in the Court could testity to, and if it was thought necessary
to verify the statement of the Chief Justice there are
practitioners in the Court now in London who could do so.
In Your Excellency's letter of 28th. August,
2.
you inform me that the Secretary of State sees no reason, for
treating the chief Justice in an exceptional manner in the matt-
-er of vacation leave. I much regret that my application in this
matter. seems to have been misunderstood. It was that the Chief
Justice of Hongkong should no longer be treated in an exception-
-al manner in the matter of vacation leave, but that he should
be treated as are other Judges in other parts of the Empire. I
think I am right in saying that there is no Colony in which the
vacation leave of the Judges of the Supreme Court is so short
as it is in Hongkong. There is no Colony where the necessity
for vacation leave after the trying heat of the surmer is more
necessary.
3.
In both my letters to which the letters of
Your Excellency above mentioned to are answers I referred to
mables