HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
15
Court Ordinance, 1873, provides in effect "so much of the practice of the English Courts as existed on the 5th April, 1843, shall be in force in the Colony," except so far as the said practice may have been modified by local legislation. The former English practice had been so modified in the following branches of the law:-
(a) Civil proceedings generally, exclusive of—
(1) matters testamentary,
(2) bankruptcy,
(3) Admiralty, and
(4) companies.
This is under the Code of Civil Procedure:
of 1901, s. 3.
Ordinance No. 3
(b) Probate jurisdiction: Ordinance No. 2 of 1897, ss. 45, 74
and 75.
(c) Bankruptcy: Ordinance No. 7 of 1891.
(d) Admiralty: Ordinance No. 6 of 1896.
(e) Companies: Ordinance No. 58 of 1911.
(f) The practice of "the Supreme Court acting in the exercise
of its criminal jurisdiction:" Ordinance No. 9 of 1899.
(g) Magistrates appeals: Ordinance No. 3 of 1890.
(h) Summary Court appeals: Ordinance No. 4 of 1873.
4. It would seem that all the ground of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is covered by local legislation with the exception of such Crown Office matters as are not instances of the exercise by the Supreme Court of its criminal jurisdiction. Such matters include habeas corpus, mandamus, and perhaps some writs of certiorari. The only reference to the Crown Office is in section 4 of Ordinance No. 9 of 1899, and that does not help in any way on the present point.
5. If the practice in these Crown Office matters is not provided for by local legislation the position is that we are thrown back on the practice of the 5th April, 1843, which is a most inconvenient state of affairs. Accordingly, clause 2 of this bill provides that the practice with regard to writs of certiorari, habeas corpus and
21
له