!
561
Jodest.
in abeosong
It bar bfos
af beðndida
His Honour omits to mention, no doubt inadvertently,
that in the action for trespass the Jury, by direction of
the Thief Justice, brought in a verdict for plaintiffs,
assessing the damages at one dollar, and that this verdict
was upheld on appeal to the full Court by the Chief
Justice, the Puisné Judgo dissenting. I venturo to draw
attention to this point as it has, I think, a bearing on
the question of the jurisdiction of the Tongkong Court in
this case. I am informed by Yessrs Router Prockelmann and
Company that they wore quite prepared to carry their
appeal to the Privy Council, but the Chief Justice having
allowed the Chinese parties to the suit to withdraw their
security for costs and thus remove themselves from the
Court's jurisdiction, 'esars Router Brockelmann and Com❤
pany, in the evnt of wimming their case on appeal, would
have been obliged to upply to the Chinose authorities in
Canton in order to obtain a refund of their costs, an
application which was hardly likely to prove successful.
I have the honour to enclose in triplicate
printed copies of the Mongkong Law Reports, containing
reports