:
att
.PIVI
Vytmural deVI „anoa, noël
.Y 400
COPY.
(To accompany No. I ).
Hon. C.S..
1.
117
•
to sqivoer and squeirondom od sponge Bed evad I
118
u le moit :i mænd a gåva wro? sedemonű „irsku odi že sottoi zuby to nois Ibsu̸xe and ou evijoler vi said) bet sod ya mbean“snostar
TOJİDİIJƐ (ront and yo dioqen s lu (quo a susiɔme I
.5
bok, ed Ilmus I ku sesso noizibendro ni erubedorq edt anżntaiqre ial add od adminos sti stooinu wes et na boog en ad IIlw woy t¿
uð loað od siebnstab va bajdžanuoɔ and oðaiðnłymi oft #% said
benovieque Wan erad aguibesoonq augteƐ spedali kas rakso yu diawa
pode or I
QUAN TË TI (..8)
ναι ωρα Οι πονού
•ytti aloq
The hearing before the Magistrate has just conclud- -ed and his reserved decision is expected this week. If he decides to commit, I understand that the defence will apply for a writ of Habeas Corpus, and they have expressed their intention if the Supreme Court is against them, of applying to the Privy Council
also.
2. I suppose that His Majesty's Linister should be ask-
-ed to commumicate the above to the Chinese Government, and should also be asked to explain to the Chinese Government shortly what our precedure is, namely, that a fugitive criminal whose surrender is demanded must first be brought before a lagistrate, who hears the evidence offered tending to snow the fugitive's guilt, and who, if such evidence is sufficient, makes an order comitting the
fugitive to gaol to await the order of the Governor; that upon the expiration of 15 days from auch order of the Magistrate the
Governor may hand over the fugitive, provided that the latter has not in the meantime applied to the Supreme Court for a writ of Habeas Corpus, a form of procedure which acts to some extent as an
appeal from the Magistrate's decision; and that if the fugitive
does apply to the Supreme Court for a writ of Habeas Corpus, he
cannot be surrendered until the Supreme Court has given a
decision upholding the Magistrate's order. From this the Chinese
Government will see that, while in some States extradition is an
executive act, in the British dominions it is partly an executive
and partly a judicial act, and that so long as the matter is
before the Courts the functions of the executive are practically
in abeyance, no interference by the executive with the judiciary
in the exercise of their functions being permissible. H. V. Kinis-
-ter might also perhaps refer to Ordinance No. 7 of 1889 of the
Ordinances of Hongkong as regulating the procedure here.
(Ed.) J. H. Kemp,
Crow Solicitor.
5.1.14.
י