HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
251
Old section 93 providing penalties for drunkenness has been omitted. Its provisions appear in the Bill of the Summary Offences Ordinance, 1932, to which they are more appropriate.
In section 101 (old section 96) a new provision has been added (para. 6) making it lawful, where a magistrate granting a review considers it desirable, for another magistrate to re-hear and determine the case.
Section 125 takes the place of old sections 120, 121, 122 and 123. It is derived from the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, (56 and 57 Viet. c. 61), section 1 of that Act having replaced sections 8, 9, 11 and 12 of the Justices' Protection Act, 1848 (11 and 12 Vict. c. 44), from which sections 120-123 of Ordinance No. 3 of 1890 were taken.
REGISTRATION OF UNITED KINGDOM PATENTS ORDINANCE, 1932.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved the first reading of a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to consolidate and amend the law relating to the Registration of United Kingdom Patents." He said: This is another consolidation Bill, the new matter in which consists in fixing certain fees to be charged in the Registry and in amending section 8 (2) by the substitution of the date of the patent for the date of the issue of the patent.
THE COLONIAL SECRETARY seconded and the Bill was read a first time
Objects and Reasons.
The "Objects and Reasons" for the Bill were stated as follows:--
The Registration of United Kingdom Patents Ordinances of the Colony were introduced on the instructions of the Secretary of State in order to carry out the recommendations of the British Empire Patent Conference, 1922, and the Imperial Economic Con- ference, 1923.
They have been adapted with slight alterations from a draft model Ordinance prepared by the Board of Trade. Defects in the model have been pointed out by the Secretary of State from time to time and the principal Ordinance has been amended accordingly, the latest amendment having been effected by Ordinance No. 18 of 1932 which was passed to comply with the Secretary of State's "Circular (2)" despatch of the 27th February, 1932.
A more recent Colonial Office circular despatch dated the 5th September, 1932, points out a further defect which has been dis- covered in the model. and which necessitates the substitution of the words "date of the patent" for the words "date of the issue
9