Page 368
of the writ, and therefore the 'usual course' involves the exercise of jurisdiction over absent Chinese, as over any other absent foreigner.
So far as executing judgments of the Hongkong Court in China is concerned, that has formed the subject of a separate correspondence.
So far as serving writs of summons is concerned, I see no reason why we should not assist the Chinese Courts in serving writs on their own subjects in Hongkong. We hand over their subjects to be beheaded. The Chinese Courts do not profess to exercise civil jurisdiction against Europeans.
The practice of serving notice of writs by Solicitors in foreign countries has the sanction of English Law, that being involved in the practice of service out of the jurisdiction. The only limitation, speaking broadly, is that the law of the foreign country must not be infringed.
come under one head, what is the proper interpretation of Article 29 of the Order in Council.
I quite agree that as the Order in Council only extends to British subjects, Article 29 in so far as it relates to the exercise of any act of authority or jurisdiction - such as the service of a writ - is similarly limited.
I agree that Mr. Mansfield's action in serving