UPT
127
atated that they would be prepared to advise the Corporation to enter as owner the Castodian of Enemy Property in China, if that Custodian had power to give them the certificate which can be given by the Hongkong Custodian under Article I (XVII) (cccc) of the Treaty of Peace Order, 1919, að enacted by the Treaty of Peace (Amendment) (No.2) Order,
1920.
4. The local situation of the shares in question
is not clear. The only judicial decision on the point is that referred to in paragraph 2 above, and that decision is adverse to the claim of the Hongkong Custodien. Doubts have been expressed as to the correctness of the judgment in that case, and it does not follow that the local situation is the same for probate duty purposes and for the purposes of the charge under the Treaty of Peace Order, 1919. Dicta in support of either view can be found in some of the English cases, but none of those cases are on all fours with the present case. Those who contend for a Hongkong situs point to the general rule as to the locality of simple contract debts. They also suggest that but for the express provisions of the Companies (Colonial registers) Act, 1883, now section 36 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, shares on a Colonial register would have been property within the United Kingdom for all purposes, especially as the Colonial register is to be deemed to be part of the company's principal register. On the other hand, the above judgment is the only judicial decision on the point, and it has been acted upon for 20 years.
5.
The shares in question are obviously situate either in Hongkong or at Shanghai. The Custodian of Enemy Property in China has agreed that they should be dealt with by the Custodian here. In these circumstances the obvious course at first sight would seem to be to obtain a declaration from the Courts as to which Custódian is entited
to