made in Chambers, or in Court, to the Chief Justice.
In the event of a Jury being refused the Chief Justice hears the case himself and then in the event of an appeal against his own decision he sits as senior in the Appeal Court, with two votes to the one held by the Puisne.
In practice therefore there is no analogy between England and Hongkong, as the law is now administered here, nor can there be so long as the Hongkong Appeal Court remains as at present constituted.
The only appeal, therefore, we have from the personal finding of the Chief Justice is that to the Privy Council, a costly undertaking which many would forego even if they considered they would have gained their case if heard before a Jury.
The Privy Council would never reverse a judgment of a lower Court on question of fact.
Questions of fact should be decided by a Jury.
It is absurd to suppose that one man can always be right, and yet, as matters now stand, the whole of the business community in Hongkong is entirely at the mercy of one man, whose judgment must at times be at fault, the Chief Justice having practically become a despot.
It was in consequence of the very important commercial cases heard last year without a jury that the business community became seriously alarmed and a very general demand arose among the merchants, and a large section of the legal profession, for a reversion to the old rule.
It is for this reason the Committee of the Chamber of Commerce considers, in the interests of the Colony, they are justified in demanding a right to a jury being granted to all who ask for it and this at once; or a full court of appeal.
The question of an improved appeal Court has,