-7
H
14
604
:
Lisac (an) !
27
IDS 147 CET * MA 29AE 240 3255 p?
Bev
JA
2 ta hamatosan vild ogba {weza
...
:
...
·
K
LE
·POT MUC (62)
.5;
ME THAT
coretan of MOUN)BA niażb
4.
4
12 dowe pianibro das I
BAG İŠATAUSTE
L
t.
1 tented uno la
MAAN ZATED BAS
CODY.
Shanghai No.127, dated March 15th, 1919, to E. M. Minister, Peking.
512,
401
I have the honour to call your attention to the case of Rex v.
Lee Kin Long which raised again the point discussed in connecti on
with Mr King's judgment in Rex v. Horne reported on page
of
the North China Herald of 20th August, 1914, namely, whether the
phrase "prohibited by law" in Article 70 (1) (5) of the Order in
Council 1904 could mean H by Chinese law" as well as "by English
law".
Mr Robinson's judgment in the present case being contrary to
Mr King's in the former case an appeal was taken, whereupon r
Wilkinson wrote me the letter of which copy is enci used.
Later before the hearing of the appeal Mr Wilkinson succeeded
in finding argumen ta in support of the judgment in the lower
court and these proved effectual, as appear from the Full Court
Judgment published in the North China Daily News of 15th March.
He points out, however, the once the opium got landed the present
Judgment would not avail; and the need for an Internati onal Regu-
lation and meanwhile for a King's Regulation would seem to con-
tinue.
I have,
e to.
(3d) E. Fraser,
Consul General.