384
142
HONGKONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Clause 3 deals with the solicitors' final ex- amination. Paragraph (a) of that section cor- rects an obvious drafting error in the Ordinance of 1871. Paragraph (b) of clause 3 provides that the fee to be paid to the examiners in the final examinoion | may be fixed by regulation by the Governor in Council. At present these fees have to be fixed afresh for each new nation. It also provides that the fees payable to examiners are to be paid by the candidate or candidates. The inten- tion is to fix the fee at $100 for each of the three examiners,
Clause 4 provides a new sanction for the offence of acting as a barrister or solicitor without qualification. The present sanction is a peunity of Szon which, apparently, has to be recoveted in a civil action against the offending party. The clause proposes to make that sanction a fine of $1,000 re- coverable on summary conviction before 2 magistrate. I beg to move the first reading.
THE COLONIAL SECRETARY seconded, and the Bill passed the first reading.
L.
The Objects and Reasons state:
1. Clause 2 deals with the question of the preliminary examination which has to be pas-ed by persons who intend to become articled clerks here.
amination used to be held in the schools here, but about the year 1913 it was abandoned for the matriculation amination of the University of Hong- kong.
ex-
5. It seems probable that it was the Oxford Local examination which the legislature had in mind when the Ordi- nance of 1913 was passed, but the effect of that Ordinance is that no one now can obtain exemption from the prelimin- ary examination unless (a) he is graduate of the University of Hongkong, or (b) he has been educated in England and has passed one of the necessary ex- am nations there.
&
6. As practically all matriculation examinations in England are grounds of exemption, and as the standard of the matriculation examination of the Hong- kong University is as high as that of any matriculation examination in England, it seems only right that the matricula tion examination of the University of Hongkong should be made a ground of
from exemption
the preliminary ex- emination here.
7-Paragraph (a) of Clause 2 of the Bill accordingly adds the matriculation examiration of the University of Hong- kong to the list of examinations which are grounds of exemption from the solicitors preliminary examination. graph (b) of the same clause makes a consequential amendment in sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the principal Ordi-
nance.
Para-
2.From 1971 to 1913 the law was that the Chief Justice might make regulations for this examination. subject to the ap- proval of the Legislative Council, and that all persons intending to be articled
8. It should, however, be pointed out in Hongkong had to pass the examina that the question discussed in the preced- tion unless they obtained an exemptioning paragraphs above has already been order from the Chief Justice. There was no restriction on the right of the Chief Justice to grant or refuse such an exemp- tion order.
3.--In 1913 an amending Ordinance was passed which provided that the Chief Justice might grant an exemption order in the case of any person (a) who was a graduate of the Hongkong University or (b) who had passed any examination which would in England exempt him from the solicitors preliminary examina- tion there.
decided in a somewhat different way in the regulations for the preliminary ex- amination which were published in the Gazette of the 16th August. 1918. The short effect of these regulations is that persons intending to become articled here must pass in the obligatory subjects of the matriculation examination of the University of Hongkong held for candi- dates in the Faculty of Arts, and must also pass in certain portions of the matriculation examination in Latin. It is not, however, considered necessary or desirable to retain the requirement of requirement is in force in England. the knowledge of Latin, because no such
4. There are a great many examina- tions in England which are grounds for exemption from the solicitors prelimin 9. Paragraph (a) of Clause 3 of the ary examination. Among them is the Bill corrects an obvious mistake in Sec- Oxford Local examination. That ex- tion 11 of the principal Ordinance. That
HONGKONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
143
section at present provides that examin- giving, or contemplating giving notice ers for the purposes of the Ordinance must be the Attorney-General, a practis- tion at all of reconstructing or pulling
to quit, when they have had no real inten ing solicitor, and another person or other down, but are prepared to do nothing at all persons to be appointed by the Chief
to the building if only the tenant will agree Justice. Obviously this is intended to to pay increased rent. apply only to the final examination, and the proposed amendment effects this object.
10-Paragraph (b) of Clause 3 of the Bill gives the Governor in Council power to prescribe by regulation the amount of the fees to be paid to the examiners in the final examination. At present the fees have to be fixed afresh on each ex- amination. The amendment also pro- vides that these fees shall be paid by the candidate, or, if there be more than one candidate. by the candidates in equal shares. It is proposed to fix the ex- aminers fees at $100 each, so that a candi- date may have pay $300 for the examination.
to
11. Clause 4 authorises a fine of one thousand dollars on summary conviction instead of a penalty of two hundred dollars (apparently recoverable by a com. mon informer) as the penalty for unlaw fully practising as a barrister or solici- The consent of the Attorney-Gen- eral for the institution of proceedings is made no longer necessary.
tor.
12. Clause 5 is a consequential amend-
ment.
A
Rents Amendment Ordinance
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL-The object of this Bill is to make a munber of amend ment in the Ordinance which was passed earlier in the year. Some of them are aimed at preventing evasions of the law by certain olasses of landlords, who I hope, are in the minority-who seem to be determined to evade the provisions of the principal Ordinance if they possibly
can.
Clauses 2 and 7 deal with paragraph (f) of sub-section 1 of section 4 of the principal Ordinance with provides that a landlord may give notive to quit to his tenant, and may recover possession if he intends bona fide to pull down the premises or reconstruct them to such an extent as to make them technically a new building. It appears that. certain landlords have been trying to treat this section in a manner which is not bone fide in other words they have been
der that parapraph of the principal Ordin Clause 7 provides that no notice given un- ance shall be valid unless given or confirmed by leave of the Court. A landlord intending to give such notice must show the Court grounds for believing that the notice given is bona fide, and on the application to the Court to give notice the tenant, of course, will have the opportunity of being heard. The clause applies also to notices already given before the commencement of the Ordinance; they will not be valid unless confirmed by the Court on appli- cation made on the same grounds as application for leave to give notice.
Clause 2 is another attempt to streng- then that paragraph in the interests of the tenant. It provides that if the land- lord gives notice, he must state in writ- ing whether he intends to pull down the premises or reconstruct and if he intends to reconstruct he must state the exact nature of the reconstruction intended. It is hoped that tying down the landlord to a specific statement in writing of his in- tentions will be some additional safe- guard to the tenants.
Clause amendment.
Clause 4 deals with the transfer of an action from the summary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to the original jurisdiction. Under the principal Ordi- nance all actions under that Ordinance have to be tried in summary jurisdiction the object, of course, being to ensure a speedy hearing and to reduce costs. It sometimes may happen, however, that two actions may be pending at the same time in the two divisions of the Supreme Court one in the summary jurisdiction, brought under the Rents Ordinance, and one in the original jurisdiction which must be tried in that jurisdiction be- cause of the amount involved. These two actions may refer to the same premises and raise the same facts, and it may be very inconvenient to have the two actions tried separately in different courts. At present there is no power to transfer a summary action to original jurisdiction SO 23 to enable the two cases to be con- solidated and tried together. This clause will give this power.
3 makes 2 slight technical