3
365
to mmmat srið - di to soeqas smo at eausoeɗ on bib I
berrizonos naw I na rat oa di beroblanos I -
TOJJBM
Jaeupak to atottel
noltasup sit tadð notɛɛenqal erit rahnu saw I „Labistalain na
nokóneup mift að „kasignade of retalaki nið yď berreter ad blow
to atassed stuɔeze bloow alvano) ada roddedw caw bevlovak
mest suami ton vilawian Hluoria I ̧ð voð midt vɗ bauanl Jusupaft
of don tiguo varð dauð noinigo to naw Ladynaci da esbut mất ti
yasinyong dierw bivos I sads em ut bamsex JI .baruɔere eď
al at tum „kartyrumete to mghứt, art ddiw noktaeup a dona aavosib
A
·
aeroff herzetet noad and noltaeup eɗt won #narottið verið æt
Ilanuod mi rebrÛ edt 1 QS #IɔIJA to moitouijanos to możzeeup
moitastiqqa ent neŭw ji entwiejob of evan yam I ¡bevfovat al
Yaz İncircmcd♬ to sybet erit iam of sham si jasupsi to atested tot
tot mid evom Jkum nds or moistaq nás vívoda si entwisjeb of avad
correspondence.
3.
Letters of Request were issued by me on
11th. September, 1908, on the application of the plaintiff in
the Action Marican v. Chu Pak Ngok; they were addressed to the
Acting Consul-General of Canton, requesting him to move the
Namhoi Magistrate to cause the notice of writ to be served on
the defendant in Canton.
Mr. Fox in his letter of 16th. September,
1908, regretted that he could not comply for the following
reasons:-
that in his capacity as Judge of the Provincial Court he
could not communicate officially with a Chinese Magistrate,
and that the request could only be made to him in his
consular capacity through the Governor of Hongkong.
that the Supreme Court of Hongkong could not exercise
na ham jędɔs of galarter (vsmod add to theve erit at summbrimos a
dowa galblosh nl .Itomuoð vytv¶ ads os eti Frigim LasqY#
b.
jurisdiction in this case against this defendant, because
soit?0 fatnoloð ad: non soitto materoï #id raftien anoitaeup
·
mat@radto 10 ‚anoijastið yð ensvretni mas
of moldusido on ever! I „bine floum mirt
of andaler di na tal om ni,noldmeup eft gnistuq ni maitutɛna
enusond (galdoot reqorq a no ****uod ow‡ edit to maltoanq ort
¡bojnereðal era drwoð ya eroted aðnægiðil doldw ni eno si ji eds saylana viteind IImia I wei▼ ni Jostɗo aidź datw brus .aɔnobnoqESTIDO
of
the claim was for a debt made by a British subject in
Hongkong against a Chinese subject in China; and as the
defendant had not absconded from the Colony he ought to be
sued through the Consulate-General before the Namhoi
Magistrate.
If however the defendant were an absconding debtor within Article 23 of the Treaty of Tientsin, the "usual course
should be followed of obtaining a judgment by default in
Hongkong,