18
rekam shara anoiteluwer to atebio yas To Juswatirs? Iatroqmi
•Vnolo✪ zaluditisq ødt of yailuetze,tol dowɑ yıla GibiLY cæsi Luknolo) silt to yaiunaq siit of ylauoiveti
#rtzwald to London a need evad of sïseġya stadt (2001 „JOA saw wei Luinoloŭ a 11 taút blod of Lesoqaib aaw dotám
Jud bliani naw di basİyal to wel trommod erid of truMETALS QU'I
to 6,8 yo Jaoï da den osow awiy doua vi Dødnexo adduob yos
sa bedzixo svad yau doğdu alduab zeitwi yua bna jãok Jadi
JUO ETIBO OJ zomrievol adi qi exlist to Joelle and ot
yď Levousï „nolnigo yuni,eza,mid of davky noljovident
eď od at wal fatnolob on Isdið soðsta noitoes Jadr
ddiw anot Jɔundani yns to pino nouaet qi bi laval baseeb
eď yau doliw koersit Joeldum adt zo mal Joum of somemler
1
mgiomyoƐ miit to Veded no to yď zonnevoð við að novig
10 diædet stadded edë në zesɛge anotjoustuok dowe meelsu
nisanq në Tuondo of control adð gulaltondus Julemarıdani yuş -isvog boog kinis teito (808ng mất tot awal of gaitossas TO
vistuloada noijinog sið simu od bra ¡ynoloù edi to Jimm
oj somutelen erau Jadi akivorq o♬ no mong nożJose and zaslo
edi 10 Justaï stadded edt nå snot douxtant dove you
to yalil Lav ødt no dostle yas evad of Jon was Jasarıdanl
.wal LatroIoD silt
"wondo of zoumvol súð oð yðkrodíðum edd cynożźnoll al
bug rebro,someq edt zot smal of gaitmases to gaianaq në sit to Il aloitik at movig al ymolcð súd to Januarmvog boog of goddamnas Jon od as snoldoszib edi ¡instat amiðal
gri berequin a nistroo yaɗð sæminu milkā to nenazio mind's
,anok douzdani Leyol est lo IDX síoitzà ni moyby ena samalo niddiw zilal doldw nołłałałyal Jadi „szolomát jl sist I ait szwadi neve boog ni emdalaigad adi to wirmą sił
-oldossidual Layo?, mild duo yrum of ballsîi svad you tonTS TOČ
I bas, anotdowndant vollot Jon seob tomtevoð mát 11
YJİLÌIST WWI Limolol mi to ka ni beau as urtet sit ler
JOA
Act, 1865, to include the Royal Instructions, then he may
have to answer to the Sovereign for his neglect; but the
section appears to me specifically to provide that failure
on the part of the Governor is not to affect the validity
of any law otherwise properly passed by the Legislative
Council and assented to by the Governor.
It is not material to my decision in this case, in
view of the construction I have placed on 8.4 of the
Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, but it may be well to add
that notice of the Crown not exercising its power of
disallowance was given as regards Ordinance No.10 of 1900
on p.395 of the Hongkong Government Gazette of the 23rd February, 1901, and as regards Ordinance No.34 of 1910 on p.235 of the Gazette of 2nd June, 1911. Assuming therefore,
that the Governor was wrong in assenting to these laws
without a suspending clause, the Crown which issued the
instructions in this respect has not taken any exception
to the incorrect action of the Governor, supposing it to
have been incorrect, and it might well be argued that any
defect in these laws has been cured by the subsequent express notification of their non-disallowance by the Crown. In this connection it may be interesting to note what is said at pp.434 and 435 of the judgment of the Privy Council
in Inglis v. de Barnard 3 Moore's P.C. Cases p.425.
In my opinion the contention on behalf of the Crown
is correct, and the validity of Ordinances Nos.10 of 1900 and 34 of 1910 cannot be impugned on the grounds put forward on behalf of the Plaintiffs in this case. As my decision
on the point of law with which I have dealt disposes of the
whole cause of action in this case. I therefore order the
dismissal of the action under the powers conferred on the
Court by s.175 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Crown
should have the costs of these proceedings.
Stay granted for one month on application of Plaintiffs.
9th January, 1925.
($2.) H. C. Gollan, Chief Justice.