Enclosure 3 in Mp Fose's despatch of
Oct. 9. 1908.
559 42629
MIRORANIUM.
DEC 7 1000
The Acting Consul-General will, I am sure, forgive me pointing out that any question as to the jurisdiction of the Hongkong Court is one which it is for the Judges of the Court to determine; if the exercise of it is challenged it can only be by defendant. The jurisdiction of the Hongkong Court extends to Chinese in China, as it does to Frenchmen in Saigon or Japanese in Japan, in certain cases defined by section 42 of the Code of Civil Procedure; subject only to the limitation contained in Ordinance 1 of 1851. It is not in any sense limited by the provisions of Art. 23 of the Treaty of Tientsin. I suppose half a dozen writs are issued every month for service or attempted service on Chinese in Canton; most of them being served by the Solicitors themselves. When however any difficulty is likely to arise recourse has to be had to the good offices of the Consul-General, under clause 29 of the China and Corea Order in Council, 1904. The Acting Consul-General will find a recent instance of this in the correspondence in connection with the case of Watson and Co. v. the Yuen Kwong Wo Firms and others. I would point out