Enclosure No.2.
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S CHAMBERS,
Hong Kong, 20th October,..194.
REPORT ON ORDINANCE No. .....32.........of 1934.
1. I have examined the accompanying Ordinance. intituled an
92583/3/32Ordinance to amend the Estate Duty Ordinance, 1932, and am
of opinion that it is one which is not contrary to the
Governor's instructions.
2. Prior to 1924 the only commissioners of oaths for the
purposes of the law relating to estate duty were the Regis- trar and Deputy Registrars of the Supreme Court, who se
commissions were issued under section 702(1) of the Code
of Civil Procedure Ordinance, 1901, and all oaths were thus
administered and all declarations, etc., taken at the Supreme
Court.
3. In January, 1924, the control of all matters relating
to the collection of estate duty was transferred to the
Treasury, and the Colonial Treasurer for the time being and
the Assista nt Treasurer were thereafter issued commissions
under the same section of the Code although their sphere of
activity lay outside the Supreme Court.
•
Section 702(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure runs
es follows:-
"The Chief Justice may, by a commission signed by him,
appoint fit and proper persons to be commissioners to ad-
5
P
P
:
minister oaths and to take declarations, affirmations and
attestations of honour in the court
6
END
5. The present Chief Justice has held, and in my opinion
righ tly held, that the words "in the court" in the said sub-
section qualify the words "to administer oaths" as well as
what follows, and that he has therefore no power to issue a
commission to & "Commissioner of Estate Duty" to administer
oaths outside the Court.
6.
The addition to the principal Ordinance effected by
this Ordinance gets rid of this difficulty, and also valida tes
all previous commissions issued and all proceedings taken
under colour of such commissions.
7. In my opinion this is an Ordinance to which His Ex-
cellency the Governor may properly assent in the name of
His Majesty a nd on His behalf.
Rohoull
Attorney General.
33800
21
r