A
Knolssure in Shanghai Deap. No.127 of 15th March 1919 to Peking.
Copy.
-3900
T
MMI AICI deraŭ bajab
Confidential.
Shanghai
4th March, 1919.
492
.7 mod to saro sdi od male::-) de quog fish of quonod add svar 1
no idosanoo ni buanquaih snieg sẽ niaga bukier do ide gas I mİX 90♫
to all areɖ no bottoųsz anzoli
Add 19029.10„ylunan PII „Jangua dies to bíszek en dü BITOK 9dJ
ni Tabuů od3 10 (G) (1) QV #IÐI*A MÌ 'wal yɗ bad id konq" ouatiq
dallank (4" wa Ilow va "wal seenžio yo lewa binob ÞOR£ fionuað
ME I
OS XTRIS NOð tyried saco JHUBSTĘ 216 at dnemybuj s'acanidol Ti
moqueusam Mudad Bar lesqgo na Band THAIsot add. ni s'gnìX *M
isao (amo mi yous Aspio lo reiða I siið am storw ngaBİN LİF
balogue nomÈXLIW Ti beqqa and to gnized wiz wzoled `səted
ISWOT 53 m. tugaybuy mid 10 Joqywa ni ad nomugra gaibrit nt
#THOU IIN! ato v The Isaqya Um Laut de"tə barozq waarit bas ¿TUOD
Man dui Ne swak ỵILA INDIJKOM Jár al bedeliduq *nsægbut
JABLOT Sis beland .8), amoqu NAJ sana eniz „IVOVON „uo ad nioq si
54 10. 099n våt bus Jilava Jon blow dramabul
-No 03 NOVE DİREN Komadinat atque tot i fetwasam bas nolɛI
C
(ta)
Dear Fraser,
I have to-day received from the Supreme Court the depositions in the case Rex vs. Lee Kia Leng, who was convicted by Mr Robinson, Acting Police Magistrate on February 19 th, for attempting to import into China opium, the importation thereof
being prohibited by law,
The defendant, a British subject, was sentenced to
5 on the hard labour, has appealed to the full Court and has
been assigned Counsel to represent him. The conviction waS for the breach of Article 70 (1) (3) of the Order in Council,
1904.
Law.
As you will remember, Ir King'decided in 1914, in the
case of Rex vs. Horne, that the phrase "is prohibited by law*
in the Order in Council meant by English law, and not by Chinese
This judgment was the subject of correspondence between
Peking and yourself and myself, and on the 23rd February 1916,
I advised the Minister that I thought that case was rightly de-
cided. Mr Robinson in the present aase has decided that the
law referred to covers Chinese prohibitions of opium smuggling.
This being so, I am now called on as Crown Advocate to support,
on Monday next, if i think right, a view of the law in direct
contradiction of the view which I already expressed to the
דקי
Minister.
Unless Mr Robinson can in consultation with me, con-
vince me that his view is correct, my attitude will have to be
that I cannot argue against the appeal. In any event, it is re
grettable that this matter should come up again before a Briti
or International' Regulations has been put in force prohi bị ting
dealing in opium by British Subjects in China.
On the 4ht July last, I wrote a despatch to you
covering a draft suggested Opium Bye-law for the Foreign Settiơm
nent here, which I suggested should be further enforced by
Internati onkl/