*}
12000
MEMC FANDU
IMEL
Rur 13 APR
15306
In answer to Sir Havilland de Sausmerez's Memorandun
on Companies inclosed in his despatch to APR 191
the Governor of the 19th Jamery 1911.
45
We have considered Sir Havilland's Memorandum, and
we desire to submit the following observations with
reference to it.
With regard to winding up we are clear that the
Hongkong Court is the only proper Court to make the order
for winding-up, having regard to the fact that the Com-
panies in question are registered here.
It seems clear also that any orders of whatever
character, which affects any change whatever in the
register fall within the Jurisdiction of the Hongkong
Court.
As regards paragraph 1, on page 7 of Sir Havilland's
Memorandun, we submit that it is important to every Court
that its Jurisdiction should be preserved intact, and that
there is no sufficient cause shown why an exception
should be made in the matter of winding up,
We agree,
however, that auxiliary powers ought to be conferred on
the Supreme Court of China in winding-up matters, to the
intent that it may have power to make orders, consequential
upon the winding up Order of the Hongkong Court, against
British subjects within its Jurisdiction.
As regards paragraph 2, on the same page, we contend
that the words, "or in part" should obviously be omitted,
because, if left in, they would have the effect of ren-
dering a Hongkong Company, which was not only registered
here but also carried on the bulk of its business here,
amenable to the jurisdiction of H.M. Supreme Court for
China, even though only one hundredth part of its business
was carried on outside of this Colony.
Vay