.........
OP Y.
tud
moldarmo?ni door I dec ́t also of as at *I * eiqioning ent
.er evig don [ftw vors!feoz toy doldw
yone!Box OY worn of rebro ml
.&
ni baa Bɛtorexa certitemoz taun I fobrim Ionnoo to droв suit
no ed bluoria ~ettam etil: oë galðsfo” armoruyob IIs tarit tehno
no riječ *** ndly besceduxa ascunde to asiqon xonna I ell ont
t
Registrar,
I see in the papers that the Jurors in
waiting who had been told to attend on Thursday morning were
not warned after Wednesday's sittings that they would not be
44
required. This was the duty of the Registry. How was it that it
was not done?
Bit of rub ton eech en sec ![łw moy na dobru mi
10*53 80 ows
„Iondroo w to selorSXS
(*0*9 €vs: I
**Jogui¶ . . (.ba)
.eotraut, toti
Yousifnogi alu
."noxanol to notevoð salt
1
H. H. the C. J.,
(Sd.) F. T. F.
26.2.09.
Notices appeared in the "Hongkong Telegraph"
and the "China Mail" of the 24th. instant and in the "South
China Morning Post" of the 25th. instant informing the Jurors
of the lat. panel that their attendance was not again required.
In this instance the Deputy Registrar sit-
-ting in court thought that as the press took notice of the
matter it was unnecessary to notify each Juror in writing
separately.
I have issued instructions that in future
the existing practice of sending a written notice to each
Juror is to be followed in every case.
(sd.) A. S.,
Regr
26.2.09.
The