i
Ro. 3
6.
550
On the 27th. ultimo, Ng Hin-tsz
and Nip Kun-man forwarded to me through their solicitor
Mr. Otto Kong Sing the petitions of which I enclose copies.
These petitions I also considered in Executive Coune il
on the 1st. instant when Council advised that, as neither
of the petitioners were willing to publish a statement dis-
sociating himself from the boycott, the banishment orders
against them should be carried into effect, and that they
should be referred to the terms of the banishment order for
an explanation of the grounds upon which they were banished.
Accordingly on the same day, Ng Hin-tsz was arrested by the
Police.
7.
On the following day his solicitor
gave notice of application for a writ of Habeas Corpus; and
on the evening of the same day the Crown Solicitor intima-
ted to me that, in his opinion the banishment warrants
issued under Section 13 of Ordinance 10 of 1886 were bad
inasmuch as seven days had been named in the Orders, in
accordance with a decision of the Executive Council on the
23rd. ultimo as the period within which the persons ban-
J
ished should leave the Colony, whereas under Section 13 of
the Ordinance the period should have been one of not leas
than 7 days; and that, if the case came for trial before
the Chief Justice, Ng Hin-tsz would certainly be released.
I referred