I may be called upon in any went to ac as Piggott will not
here again as
and I am
C.J
Superdly
to be
be again taking leave until he retires.
Smedy hoping som friced on the bench Ebenstone but it was be satisfactory
to know that in any
possible Emergency he castan almost invariably observed here, and which wor I came here, of appo
when
ні водне
to act may he Ag
time.
ony
I may
me ar
be and has to m
add that may has complimen
work as C.J and I do n my Suggest the least personal mctive, I feel, sure that if Su Ft Lugard
indorse may's
here he would unders
we
our summer we
woe
Recam
hope is recorly our
but we are living in terror of typhon hut so far
which are all Rand us
Kank
To
Heaven we have escaped. "I hope you had a good holiday
·Scotland.
was it in
yous
Ever Whers Davies
Copy
2004
sir,
со
33338
Rece
REG29 OCT 10
391
Attorney General's Chambers,
Hongkong, 26th September, 1910.
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of
your letter of the 31st ultimo forwarding for my information a
copy of His Excellency the Officer Administering the Government'
despatch to the Secretary of State of 21st of May and of Lord
Crewe's reply dated 28th July which pointed out that it was
desirable as a general rule to avoid the appointment of the
Attorney General as Acting Chief Justice owing to the difficul-
ties arising where the Attorney General may have been concerned
previously in advising the Crown on a matter coming before him
when acting as Chief Justice.
2.
I desire respectfully to submit that the quali-
fied instruction of the Secretary of State should not apply 80
long as I hold the position of Attorney General in this Colony. I came here with the full assurance and belief that the custom
hitherto observed of the Attorney General acting in the absence
of the Chier Justice would he adhered to. This was certainly
so in the case of my two immediate predecessors, fir Henry
Berkeley and Sir William Goodman,
I have spoken to His Excellency and I understand he indorses my submission that the instruction should not in any event ally in
the case of myself.
3.
As regards the case of Sun A Van and the remarks in paragraphs 4 and 5 of His Excellency's despatch I have to say that, as I had already given in the Pull Court a considered judgment on the same question of costs in the case of the same individual, to have given another decision except for the specific purpose of reversing that of fir Francis Piggott would have been a farce as Mr. Rowley the Crown Solicitor must vell