of a fin, every person concerned in the management shall also be held
to be guilty, unless he is able to prove that the actions committed without
his knowledge
Paul merely says
pole sover
of consent. The Atty
that Nemagee is the
of the business in questions,
that as he is not in
Hongkong, it is very doubtful how the conviction of
some person connected with his form
Mr.
堂
↑ Mr. Strachey.
Bir. J. Shuckburgh.
Bir O. Davis,
Bir G. Grindle,
Sir J. Masterton Smith,
Mr. Ormsby-Gore.
Mr. Amery.
DRAFT.
would operate
00 40
to bring
him r
made
by
others within the inference
the provision in question.
3. The Soft. notes that in
the opinion of Sir William Joguson-Sticks,
the Atty Paul's interpretation of Sec. of (1/(d) of Croke do of 19av is incorrect, whatever
1924
the Opnim Orace hand, as enacted by
have been the intention
of the
Section
See, a of the Quim
Gundt Orace 1904,
fact
may the Poft is advised that what in
it does is to make it possible to
parom.
fromscute anyone in Honghong who
has been a party to the commission
'an act done out of Houghing, which
of an
f
180
.192....
if committed in Honghong would be
offence. In this particular case it does not affear that the fectioncariend
the matter
Ebely
قا
any further,
(DE CAME
or would be
conoration
than proceedings under Sec. 4 lipas
the Atty Gaul suggestio
With regard to the question
clear
of evidence, it not that
or anyone
Nemagre
connected with
kim
had
anything
to do with the
J
sending of the tel. from Houghing
to the master
of the P.S. "Corgistan's
It is not possible to subpoena
or