CO129-058 - Sir Bowring - 1856 [8-10] — Page 204

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed

Series Prev Next

202

for the first

" which he has

and only time in

ever acted, formed)

" the Bench, and these justices –

again supported, this Chief

Magistrate in his determination not to give effect to the Law

"And cooperated, with the Chief

Magistrate

in his extraordinary

" course of proceeding.

All we know not be what course of reasoning His Excellency may

have arrived at these

conclusions, but while we with

all due respects indignantly deny the imputations thus cast upon

our motives we

challenge the right of His Excellency, The

Executive Council or Authority

any other to dictate our course

of action while on the Bench or to publicly question in such terms our decisions when given.

We would also point out

to His Excellency that the inference which may be drawn from the Memorandum under notice, that the writ of Mandamus issued by His Honour the Chief Justice had reference to the decisions of the Justices on 28th May and 2nd June is an incorrect one. The question

submitted to His Honour

was whether under the Ordinance

Edit History

2026-05-18 05:05:03 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

202 for the first " which he has and only time in ever acted, formed) " the Bench, and these justices – again supported, this Chief Magistrate in his determination not to give effect to the Law "And cooperated, with the Chief Magistrate in his extraordinary " course of proceeding. All we know not be what course of reasoning His Excellency may have arrived at these conclusions, but while we with all due respects indignantly deny the imputations thus cast upon our motives we challenge the right of His Excellency, The Executive Council or Authority any other to dictate our course of action while on the Bench or to publicly question in such terms our decisions when given. We would also point out to His Excellency that the inference which may be drawn from the Memorandum under notice, that the writ of Mandamus issued by His Honour the Chief Justice had reference to the decisions of the Justices on 28th May and 2nd June is an incorrect one. The question submitted to His Honour was whether under the Ordinance

Baseline (Original)

202 for the first " which he has and only time in ever acted, formed) " the Bench, and these justices – گر مو again supported, this Chiep Fragistrate in his determination not to gives effect to the Law "And cooperated, with the Chiep Magishäte sträte in his extraordinary " course of proceding. Alle Know not be what= course of reasoning His Excellency may have arrived at these conclusions, but while we with all de respects indignantly deny the imputations thus cast upon anotives we our oO the challenge right of His Excellency, The Fecutive Council or Authoritig any other to dictate our cour de of action while on the Bench or to publicly question in such tions our decisions where givers. We would also point out to His Excellency that the inference which may be drawre from the Memorandurn under notice, that the coret of Mandamus issued by His Honours the thief Sustice had reference to the decisions of the Justices on 28. May and 2nd June is an incorrect one. The question submitted to His Monour AVAI whether under the Ordinance

2026-05-18 05:05:03 · Baseline

View content

202

for the first

" which he has

and only time in

ever acted, formed)

" the Bench, and these justices –

گر مو

again supported, this Chiep

Fragistrate in his determination not to gives effect to the Law

"And cooperated, with the Chiep

Magishäte

sträte in his extraordinary

" course of proceding.

Alle Know not be what= course of reasoning His Excellency

may

have arrived at these

conclusions, but while we with

all de respects indignantly deny the imputations thus cast upon

anotives we

our oO

the

challenge right of His Excellency, The

Fecutive Council or Authoritig

any other to dictate our cour de

of action while on the Bench or to publicly question in such tions our decisions where givers.

We would also point out

to His Excellency that the inference which may be drawre from the Memorandurn under notice, that the coret of Mandamus issued by His Honours the thief Sustice had reference to the decisions of the Justices on 28. May and 2nd June is an incorrect one. The question

submitted to His Monour

AVAI

whether under the Ordinance

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.