12
172
In the first of those cases it is clearly stated in the report that
"The Motion was made on behalf of Angel Castioni for "an Order Ni si calling upon the Solicitor to the "Treasury, Franklin Lushington Esq., the Metropoli- "tan Police Magistrate and the Consul General of "Switzerland as the representative of the Swiss Re-
"public, to show cause why a Writ of Habeas Corpus "should not issue to bring up the body of Castioni "in order that he might be discharged from custody"
In the report of the second case it is stated that
"The Motion was made on behalf of Emile Arton for an
"Order Nisi calling upon the Secretary of State for
"the Home Department, Sir John Bridge, the Chief
"Magistrate of the Metropolis and the Government of
"the French Republic to show cause why a Writ of
"Habeas Corpus should not issue, directed to the
"Governor of Holloway Prison, cammanding him to
"bring the body of Arton into court to abide by the
"judgment of the court.
In the course of his judgment in the case of Li Yu Mui
the Chief Justice (in the concluding paragraph on page 231 and
the first paragraph on page 232 of Part 5 of Volume 5 of the
Hong Kong Law Reports remarke d: -
#
But there is another and it appears to me
"important reason against allowing the Foreign
"Government to appe ar.
ver,
?
Counsel for the Government take their instruc-
tions from the Government and must therefore put "forward the Official interpretation of the Act or
"Treaty.
The Court will decide whether that view "is right or wrong, but it is quite conceivable that
"a Foreign Government might not at all like this
#
-4-
S