Enclosure
Sir,
Supreme Court, Hongkong, 2nd. July, 1909.
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of Your Excellency's letter No. 3070/09, dated 15th June, enclosing copy of a letter from the Chamber of Commerce, and enquiring whether the proposed draft bill to amend the Code of Civil Procedure commends itself to me.
I must first apologise for my delay in replying to Your Excellency's question - but I have been very busy recently in Court and I wished to have time to think the matter over.
As at present advised, I am unable to see any sufficient reason for the proposed amendment of the law. The law was altered in 1901, I presume not only because it was thought advisable to bring our practice into line with that of the English Courts, but because the legislature believed that the new procedure was preferable to the old.
I would point out that at the present time under two of the sections objected to, Sections 289 and 291, either party is entitled to a jury if he so desires.
I do not think it would be advisable to deprive the Court of the discretion it exercises under Section 290. The result would be that one party could always force a jury on the other, even where the Judge was convinced that this procedure would be most unsuitable to the circumstances of the case.
I have etc.,
(sd.) H. H. J. Gompertz, Puisne Judge.
His Excellency Sir Frederick Lugard, K.C.M.G., Governor, &c...