z
535
Company" was framed with a view to article 10 of
the urder-in-Council and that article 15 is only
intended to refer to China Companies and to ongkong
Companies carrying on part of their business in
China,
Furthermore there is express provison in
the China (Amendment) order-in-Council 1913 as to
what & liome Company carrying on part of its business in China 16 required to do, and it would not appear
that these requirements are intended to be inter-
ferral with by the article in question, If the
intention had been to change these requirents it
would surely have been done by express words.
Everything in the rder-in-' ouncil of 1915
and the ordinance of 1915 and in the "Objects and
Reasons" published in the Hongkong lovernment Gazette
at the time the ordinance of 1915 was passed is con-
sistent with the theory that there was no intention
whatever to alter the obligations of Home Companies
carrying on business in China, except as appears in
Article 10 of the order-in-Council 1915, and I submit
that the "Objects and weasons" indicate clearly that
the intention was simply to give to the upreme Court
for China the same jurisdiction in China over Companies
registered under the ordinance which the upreme Court
of Hongkong had over such Companies in Hongkong before
they were divided into "Hongkong" and "China" Companies
In conclusion, I beg to point out that juris-
diction over Home Companies carrying on business in
China is given to the supreme court for China by the
order-
: