th
in Hong Kong of having two counsel on each side actually in Court in every case of any importance which includes practically all commercial cases and many others. Resulting from this
(3) the unreadiness of counsel to deal with a case until a preceding case in which some or all of them are enraged is finished. Hence applications for adjournment which appear to be granted as a matter of course.
(4) The want of control exercised by the Judges not only as regards adjournments but generally for the prolixity and irrelevance of counsel and witnesses.
(5) The necessity for translation in the case of Chinese evidence and docu- ments.
1
་་
Cauard"
Ir Bushe has dealt with these eees from the point of view of counsel imbued with the admirable editions and practice attending the administration of justice in our English Courts. Valuable as such criticism is, however, the matter must not be viewed
exclusively from that standpoint
alone.
The despatch and its enclosures constitute
an indictment of
A.
The Hong Kong practice generally(cases (1)
and (5)).
(2)and
B.
The personal competence and ability of the present Judges (case (4)).
A. The Hong Kong practice.
As regards this I think causes (1) and (5) are standing factors which have to be faced and which differentiate the case of Hong Kong from that of England, Scotland or Ireland.
No amount of reform will immediately
increase the numbers of the local Bar (though it might
have that effect in time) or dispense with the
necessity for the translation of Chinese evidence.
XY
Consequently in dealing with causes (2) and (3).
the present small number of the Hong Kong Bar and the necessity for translating documents must be taken into consideration and applications for adjournment on the ground of the
absence or unreadiness of
counsel can hardly be dealt with as
as they are here.
^
trenchantly
128
At the same time the idea that two counsel
on each side must actually be present in Court throughout the whole case(see enclosure 4, paragraph 6) is absurd, and if only one is present on either side or on both the Judge should as a rule require the case to be proceeded with. He could of course exercise discretion to grant an adjournment if he thought that there was any hardship involved.
Generally however, I agree with Mr.Buse that even in the present conditions the Rench could do a good deal in the way of making adjournments the exception rather than the rule and of curbing the the prolixity or irrelevance of counsel, the tendering of unnecessary or irrelevant evidence and the abuse
of cross examination (
( 2005f enclosures 15 and 16). This brings me to the personal question. B. The competence of the present Judges.
Sir W.Rees Davies was called to the Bar in
I don't know
1887 and went the South Wales circuit.
the extent of his practice but undoubtedly for some
years he did a certain amount of work.
From 1892 to 1898 he was Sir W.Harcourt's
Private Secretary and a Member of Parliament and we will assume that during those years he had not time to practise at the Bar. Then from 1898 to 1902 he was Attorney General of the Bahamas, from 1902 to 1906
King's
Consequently