Para. 5.
personal question did not enter into the scheme, but merely the abstract one as to the advisability of constituting a new Appeal Court.
The use of the word "Court" in my letter has here been misunderstood. It was used in the well-known way, as signifying the Court or building in which the Chief Justice usually presides: e.g. The Lord Chief Justice's Court in the Royal Courts.
This paragraph is evidently based on a misconception of the details of the scheme. The Court was intended to be constituted of three Judges: the result of which would be that in the event of a difference of opinion between the Chief Justice and the Chief Judge of Shanghai, the opinion of the Puisne Judge of the Colony would prevail.
The second part of the paragraph is not sound in law. On appeals when any personal weight is attached to a Judge's opinion, the two cases in which it is so attached - where a matter of discretion is involved: and where a doubt exists as to the true meaning of the evidence it is in favour of the Judge who has tried the case, and the opinion of the Judge with the fresh mind does not prevail.
Para. 6.