F
t
333
20 the DAV KOHT # not neidrodigia si
anan por VÀ Bobao xin sanit or pramen de IT
.‡Cevennes Isiveqa
„EINGA JAR 72
ma del elt sattuul. Y1:10 Bnr gf betong mot erit to exile evt ot
•MC CHÍ GIISTAY MÁ .YUNG A *noted bebÝ IN - ved bforfa .b&
→inivel dansgendIn wie man øved or resa don asob vald .fite bra
I hovlarni vans Intot - „YUL. A vežbiosisiokw wild, not not/go-
000, 05€ 15 at aneso turot eeo:ly
-dano zengi sya? I ca%80 00/ BA
-*SONG Bore €
*R*DataGA 100w nolcokbatur, vblenden! ni being aned ever! vi-
Ingkete() mt hou com ***i^ B
besbaab utarbely mis terk base of mere yari nolculbain
to nst bus ticentri ad caso es rithe Ekob of solta T teir art
A new drino Thờ mg of Danente me shen vino bus atoutsenk
.net her as esv vunt Isioega
sees bronus erit
to wobble; barth ohm HS DE NOVO to win entef & quivlovat
A net bred title.li a sidemakdaen, is al bue Just
3 BON'T 163, AL BUN
AY), Act acolteuli „A UNOSIR ME & fpermaneg að (Doitavt -solljus hian men da beremol to tenths. 1 sull,nhac visetupent doz attuale da z at Ysa oh rv zary and PURE VIJESjent enw anol?-
be not matteolla ere,hovkonti adnet dasdrogrid ena storit beanetɗo ilgwollt wire hanno to telean a en howolle et birorta
.bauit. d 0. dor bite,ente tecido mvis vi os
kot mi)
-ndresd on net par da
Loud at beautem cond wwwt (ansos
rattasip aide to
•at hebigen TRUL ved 3 1-6 edgermutte¶
I .0303 ni yeh I pi
-Ah oftacio saltau, tohib ale vd heroup asaza siz robinLOD abio pra sad cult to molten vis ne not woð khanoer að
vutog
point I will deal with later on.
Paragraph 6. It is very satisfactory to
have an assurance from the Chief Justice "that personally he is
not at all unfavourable to juries", as hitherto the Chief
Justice has made no secret of the views he held (but has now
apparently abandoned) that he did not approve of a Jury and lie
has stated this on more than one occasion.
If any further argument were required to ser
show the necessity for a change in the existing ordinances it is
found in the concluding lines of the Chief Justice's letter.
"In the first case on the list, a partner-
-ship issue, I intimated that I thought there should be a Jury
to try such issues; but this was strongly objected to by one of
the Counsel engaged".
Here we have the Chief Justice in agreement
with us,
that a Jury should be granted, and yet he so reads the
Ordinances that he seems to consider he is bound to refuse a
Jury whenever objected to by one side or the other.
Up till the Spring of 1908 a jury has very
rarely been refused, but now a new construction appears to have
been placed upon the law and in spite of his better judgment,
the Chief Justice seems to consider he is compelled to refuse a
Jury if pressed to do so.
I believe the Pulsne Judge supports the
Chief Justice in his opposition to our suggestion to revert to
the old practice which obtained prior to 1901, on the grounds,
so I am given to understand, that we should follow the home
practice, but this I consider is inapplicable to this Colony
and that the cases quoted have clearly demonstrated this.
At home application for a jury is heard by
one Judge, the case subsequently coming before another. While there is further full arrangement made for appeals. I understand
a case is rarely heard by the same Judge who may have refused a
Jury.
بار
In Hongkong the application for a jury is
made