p. p
**
ecord .99.
32.
84
authorised by reason of the prison Ordinance 1999
1899) and the regulations made under that Ordinance (the
material parts of such Urdinance are set out in the Appendi #
to the Respondents Case)
On the 12th June judgment was given by the Court discusg=
ing the action. The learned Judges held that the proceedings
had been in accordance with the Deportation Ordinance. They
my thy
further held that the Deportation Ordinance was valid.
respect to the Appellant's claim for assault they held that
the acts complained of did not constitute ar assault and
also that they were authorised under the Prison Ordinance
1899 and the Prison Regulations. The reasons of the learned_
Judges will be found set out at pages 99 to 126 of the
Hecord.
35.
Against this decision the present appeal is being preferre
34.
The Respondente humbly submit that the said Appeal should
be disgrased for the following
REASONS
1.
BECAUSE the Deportation Ordinance 1917 was a valid
Ordinance duly enacted.
2.
BECAUSE the proceedings of the Respondents were duly
taken under the said ürdinance.