- 6 -
66
between the "Waters of the Colony" (as defined) on the one
hand, and national waters, territorial waters and leased
waters on the other, nor had any evidence been led by either
party in the Court below to establish such a distinction.
It is submitted, however, that even assuming that the
distinction is sound and that the crime was committed in
leased waters, the argument based on the proviso to Article 2
does not invalidate the submission of the Crown because if,
as Counsel for the appellant contended, the vessel was a
floating fragment of Chinese territory, then she was not
leased territory. Alternatively, the Crown submitted that the
appellant did not establish by evidence the facts necessary
to bring him within the protection (if any) afforded by the
proviso. (Copies of the Interpretation Ordinance, 1911, and
of the China Order in Council, as respectively amended, are
available in the Colonial Office Library).
13. The Full Court reserved judgment, and the written
judgment of the court dismissing the appeal was pronounced by
MacGregor, C.J., on the 15th October, 1937. A certified copy
of this judgment is amongst the documents forwarded to Reid
Sharman & Co., referred to in paragraph 3.
14. On the 16th October, 1937, Messrs. Hall Brutton & Co.,
the Solicitors for the appellant in Hong Kong, addressed a
letter to the Colonial Secretary of the Colony, requesting
that the execution of sentence on the appellant might be
respited in order that he might apply to the Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council for leave to appeal to His Majesty in
Council in forma pauperis. On the 23rd October, 1937, the
Officer Administering the Government of Hong Kong ordered
that sentence should be respited accordingly, and the
operation of such Order has been extended periodically up