7 6030/5175/10
sir.
22
PORZION OFFIGN.
S.#.1.
23rd November, 1928.
With reference to Board of Trade letter No.6126/28
of the 2nd instant enclosing a letter from Kosara Utephensen,
Marwood and Tatham, regarding the position of Shanghai under
Section 10 of the Companies Act, 1920, I am directed by Lard
Quehendun
ite that there i no doubt that so far as
law is concerned šestiona 34 to 36 of the Companies
(Conwalidation) Mat 1908 could be extended to China by Order
in Council under the Foreign Jurisdiction Aets.
The preatiesi situation is, however, compliented by
the fact that under Article 187 of the China Order in Councià,
1923, the jurisdiction of the Court in respect of British
Companies carrying on business in China is to be exercised,
so far sa cirouastanees admit, in conformity with the
provisions of the Companies Urdinanses of Hong kong • Again,
under Article 189 all sats done by the Registrar of Companies
at Changhai are, subject to the provisions of the Order, te
be of the same force and validity as if done by the Registrar
of Companies in Hong Kong. Prima facis, therefore, it would
appear that Section 36 of the lang leng Jompanies Ordinance
of 1911 is applicable in China te companies like these
referred to by kesere Stephensen, Farwood and Tatham, which are registered ngland and carry en basiness in China, an
The Secretary
the feard of Trods,
(Gompanies Department)
that/