CO129-024 - Bonham - 1848 [3-6] — Page 104

4

lony meation of the Supreme Court to heave the folony - that many had done so already without the possibility of preventing them writ could be issued against breause no them that if Lesue Was jrived. in an action at the end of June, the trial could not come before the 14th of December that in the time the witnesses died, or went to other parts of the world, or if they remained in Hongkong, it was at very great expense to the parties in the suits - that the inconvenience, hardship, and expence recasioned by this unprecedented long vacation, or rather torpid state of the Court, great that suitors and others who would have recorted to the Court for the redress of grievances, reluctantly put up were so with their losses rather than incur the annoyance of a protracted law suit to fail in the end."

Arving accertained that there were correct, and seeing that representations the Court by making the public would be benefited and the increase of business would bring an increase to the Revenue by Court Fees - I suggested the alteration of the old Rule - Clause 5 of the new Rules was framed according to my suggestion, and the result has proved that the alteration was very necessary- There are no cases in arrear, and the Court Fees in the mouths of July $451.70, August... 418., September.... 743.50, October.... 361.50, November... 699.30, December... 473.80.

#1 $3,088.05 - 1847 amounted to $3,088.05.

This 5th Clause was framed at the first reading of the new Rules of Court- objectio Housto was then made. At the secour