anart admit his new f
channete predne
4
the constitutional
themise with Sors & the Sys.
what unless he pays up
the amount will be deducted from
sension
R 5/4/16
The soft does not
counting
or
his
C
lectures whom
require any constitutional conduct, nos
legal advisio are
on Law ""lementary "
مسا
otticourse, from Sir F. Picazott, and I think
hrz
it is time that won hagut this affair
an
to
card.
of course furfully familiar here with
the law as to the effect of colonial judgments
to
KALO
Country
wit the reference to the
Colonial Conference of 1887 is interesting.
画
Mr. 7.T. Pierrott" was allowend
push himself, & a Bill which he had
oflid on colonial judejucati Extension, into the Conference where the matter was disma at quat length. The Bill was to hav ban use Bucrerett's favouriti child
but alas if was
still-born. The Subject still continues to come before the lepers, it conference and, as a roult of the Conference of 1918, a Bill has been oftid (notty Six 7 Piggott) and to at present hung af with the BofT.
al
و
would now sum up generally
agend Six Fliegt
and reply on the following loans :_
[se wat face, in type ]
omit [ ]
Kin
25203/14
27825/14
Amen is 29991/14 Oct. 14 40019/14
Du 2793411044/16
442
The dispute between Sir F.Piggott and Mr Suffiad cannot be regarded as being a "purely personal"
one, inasmuch as it arose out of a public and official matter, the revision of the Hong Kong Law Book, which was only entrusted to Sir F.Piggott because he was at that time the Chief Justice of the Colony
+
Sir F.Piggott entered into an arrangement
with Er Suffiad under which the latter was to render
assistance in the work and receive remuneration from Sir
F.Piggott.
When Sir F.Piggott retired [(leaving the work unfinished and in a very unsatisfactory state) he left the Colony owing Mr Suffiad 600 dollars under this arrangements.
A
After a considerable time had elapsed and
Sir F.Piggott had failed to pay this debt, Mr Suffiad
sought the good offices of the Governor, and Mr Bonar Law's predecessor called Sir F.Piggott's attention to
the matter in July, 1914.
Sir F.Piggott then took up the position that he was merely under a moral and not under any legal obligation to pay Mr Suffiad this sum, and though he promised more than once that he would pay at his own convenience he continued for over a year to leave the debt unpaid.
x
The judgment of the Hong Kong Court of
24th December, 1915, has now placed it beyond doubt that
the obligation was a legal one, and it soone clear from
the fact that Sir F.Piggott paid 1550 dollars on the 5th
of January last that the judgment was brought to his
notice and application for payment made.
A
If this was not the case it is not apparent
why