20
88aur? -
To Miss Glazebrook (4/2 11483758431) - Sidur? -
872. Mess. Elagebrock. Acks. (84)
8/10
6
88 Kan
411.
Lan
1.10
obem
reported in (82).
the Care
This is not very satisfactory.
The
Attorney-General advises that the transaction was
probably illegal under Section 45 (a) of Ordinance
No. 2 of 1865, and it seems to me that the Hong Kong
a Government ought to have brought the charge against
the persons concerned irrespective of the acquittal
on the much more serious charge dealt with in the
newspaper extracts at 82. Apparently the only
possible defence would have been that this was an
adoption in accordance with Chinese custom. On this
point the Attorney-General's view quoted here is
interesting.
If "Chinese custom is so very vague,
it does seem to be desirable that we should render
its meaning in the Ordinance precise. In one sense
anything which is done by Chinese people can be called
Chinese custom, but I hardly think that is what is
meant by the Ordinance. At present, however, it
seems that the Government is afraid of bringing any
cases under this Section for fear Chinese custom
may be invoked successfully as a defence. It seems
to me that the only way of clearing up the position
will be to prosecute wherever there are reasonable
grounds, and leave the meaning of Chinese custom
to be determined by the Courts who are, after all,
the