As regards the plaintiff's costs, the shareholders
for whom the Official Rebeiver wasacting had spent $125,000
Since that time "the total when the Government intervened. sum already paid by the Government on account of the Official
This rather looks Receiver's costs amounts to $44,357".
H
as if the whole amount of the palintiff's coste had not yet been ascertained and paid, and the Governor says just above (Par. 7) the amount of this liability is at present un- certain". This, however, may refer only to the defendant's costs, a question which "still remains to be argued.* (Par.6)
I cannot see that there is much doubt that the Official Receiver (and therefore the Government) will have
texed
A
to pay the defendant's costs, which ( judging from the costs incurred by the palintiff) may well amount to over
$100,000.
It thus appears that the hong kong Government and stands to pay twenty five to thirty thousand pounds, no wonder the Governor has recently been writing very strongly rely about the delays in litigation in the Supreme Court.
That alternative had they?
If the Government had refusedto intervene in the civil proceedings, and on their breaking down had imediate- ly pressed on the criminal proceedings against the defen- dant, the reputation of Hong Kong with regard to the ad- ministration of British justice would not, I think, have
taken much hurt.
The Governor deals with this alternative in Para- graph 8(d) of his despatch and I am unable to traverse hie statement that the criminal proceedings would have lasted
longer than the continuation of the civil action.
However this may be, the Government would have had of course
to pay the costs (ex hypothesi very heavy costs) of the
He difference See the Teas
& Crots • Listaxe
for fore the It. Komey front to Fradre
if Convicted?
вий Yes.
I twin this
criminal proceedings, whereas there was some chance of get-outered by my
ting part at any rate of the costs of the civil proceedings,
if
rele
a f
Come to trols of
Cos 15 the + in this cas thean certain fearin.
have been
305
if they were continued and the plaintiff succeeded, out of the defendant.
civil
A
I must, however, point out that if the action had gone against the defendants the Government would still have been absolutely bound to take criminal proceedings against the latter and there would still have been fairly heavy costs in these proceedings for the Government to meet.
But whatever course had been adopted by the Government it appears that they could not have avoided incurring heavy expense over this matter.
(1) If they had not intervened in the civil action they would have had forthwith to take crini- nal proceedings which would have landed them with
heavy costs.
(2) If after they had intervened in the civil action it had resulted in favour of the plaintiff they would still have had to take criminal proceeding against the defendants with the like result, and
might moreover have had considerable coats to pay
also in respect of the civil action.
(3) As things are, they are saddled with heavy
costs in respect of the civil action and no costs
will be incurred in respect of criminal proceedings
which cannot now be taken.
X
It is impossible for me to guess which of these
kost three positions might have been the mast expensive for
the Government, but I rather incline to think that, apart from the question of expense, it would have been most in accordance with legal and constitutional propriety if they had adopted position (1) and endeavoured to vindi- cate the administration of justice in Hong Kong by an at- tempt to punis: the wrong-doers rather than by giving
(chlampertous)