Istorted vednoJJA.COM
erð eruðu'i nd bewollot ed of el eoljnang eid) i
galed to regnab nt en yllamenog ofsioftio taeminovod bow word e doua tarit Jindua i bas admod 18ool ett ni gled s belueb
wel od ytandпoo bi gottant to feizab aghup a besididong dotdie vel to vius Dr to #oxf i
*
a no botlusoo neod, Isznuo3
*
Berf od 11.098o a gatvij 2011 .ajmugitif end to eno to Jaemetate ad'inqxə
bijorte etnia (9:81 to I to .000) to Istofbuk Bet gutbrosos sigin ob [Itw egbut a Jafi eedustry to foltta s eď .*III II ne moitosîte, wovat zo set tuoridi," wal of
.toivon .J.b.i (bg)
.00.[I.OS
P Y.
.1400
Jenclosure 2
Hon. Colonial Secretary,
2.
596
The question raised by the Minute of the
Crown Solicitor dated 26th.11.09 is whether the Acting Chief
Justice (Mr. Rees Davies) has such an interest in these proceed-
-ings as to disqualify him from acting.
The proceedings herein are (a) an appeal
against an order of the Chief Justice (Sir Francis Piggott)
discharging a fugitive offender called Sun A Wan on a Writ of
Habeas Corpua the said Sun A Wan having been committed to
Victoria Gaol pursuant to an order under Section 10 of the
Chinese Extradition Ordinance 1889; (b) an order for costs made
by the Chief Justice against the Crown consequent on the dis-
-charge of the said Sun A Wan.
According to the minute of the Crown
Solicitor all the Acting Chief Justice did with respect to
these proceedings was to give his sanction as Attorney-General
to appeal to Mr. Alabaster making/formal application for leave from Sir Francis Piggott's decision that the Crown should pay
costs. The sanction was given as a matter of form.
@
With respect to the legal question commonly
called "Disqualification for Interest", this question has come
before different courts on many occasions. There are a vast
number of decided cases on the point.
The rule of law" with respect to this question was thus stated in the case of R. v. Handslay 1881 8 Q.B.D. 387 *In order to disqualify the Justice it must be
established that he had such a substantial interest in the
result of the hearing so as to make it likely that he has a
real bias in the matter".
The facts of R. v. Handsliy are as follows:-
An Officer of a Corporation appointed to
collect the borough rate obtained a Summons against a rate- -payer in arrear. In so doing he acted in the discharge of his
duty