#
177
"must be limited in every direction by that Ordin-
"ance. Mr. Pollock stated that the practice in Hong
"Kong has been for the Chinese Government to appear. "I did not understand him to refer to proceedings
"other than those before the Magistrate. And with
"regard to the proceedings before the Magistrate it
"would appear that what I have said should logically
"extend to all proceedings under applications for
"extradition. I think it better, however, to limit
"my judgment to the point actually before me, the
"position of the Chinese Government on the applica-
ion for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. This position
"might be somewhat altered in the case of the pro-
"ceedings before the Magistrate, more especially
"where the warrant is applied for, as in this case,
"before the Governor hae received a requisition from
"a Foreign Court. That question must be considered
when it arises.
#
So far as we can see the decision in the case of Li Yu
Mui, which was decided subæquently to the case of Wong Ka Cheong (so far as concerns the "locus standi" of the Chinese Government in the Police Court) in no way differed from the
די
decision in the case of Wong Ka Cheong, except that in the former case the Chief Justice distinctly limited his decision to the question of the argument on the Writ of Habeas Corpus which was before the Court, whereas in the latter case of Li Yu Mui, he appears to have given a decision on a subject (the "locus standi" of the Chinese Government in the Police Court) which was not a question before the court.
We would respectfully ask on behalf of the Chinese Govern ment that under the circumstances steps should, if the same are possible, be taken with a view to securing for the Chinese Government the right to be represented by their own Solicitors
-9-