i
171
"before him in that case a precedent which was pro- "duced to us; the case of Leung Ah Fu: heard by the "Full Gourt of Hong Kong. Russell C. J. and Leach "J. in 1887 when Mr. Francia, Q. C. appeared for the "Chinese Government.
14 Nor was there cited to him Castioni's case "1891 1 Q.B. page 149) in which the English Solici- "tor General appeared for the Swiss Government be-
"fore the Divisional Court. It is noticeable that
"the Order Nisi in that case called upon both the "Police Magistrate and the Consul General for Swit-
"zerland to show cause.
"1
Whether or not the learned Chief Justice would
"have modified the opinion he expressed in Wong Ka
#1
Cheong's case, had these important precedents been
"brought to his notice, it is not worth while how
"to consider. The Attorney General, for the Crown,
"raised no objection to the Chinese Government being
"represented, and we determined, on this occasion,
"that without deciding the question at large we
*would hear Sir Henry Berkeley. In the event of the
"question being raised again we should require ful-
"ler argument on the point than was possible on this
"Occasion".
It was subsequent to the decision in this case that the
Chief Justice's decision in the case of Li Yu Mui above referr-
ed to was given, namely, on the 15th September 1910.
We have perused the reports of the cases In re Castioni (referred to in the Judgment of Mr. Justice Gompertz above mentioned) and In re Arton (1896 1 2.B. Division page 108 referred to in the judgment of the Chief Justice set forth on page 20 of Part 1 of Volume 1 of the Hong Kong Law Reporte.)
-3-