Lai's Office (11401),
127/11
Sir J. Rogers
Molland
I am happy to remember,
But it was reported that the High Court could not try cases committed as they thought there was piracy in the High Seas.
No objection was raised to the provision of Ordinance No. 9 of 1866 so far as related cases fell within the jurisdiction of the Court.
That is to say where piracy was committed, it conformed, and therefore the present Ordinance was sanctioned.
Section ... to sanctioning the present Ordinance under certain Guerra.
To the Chief ...
A Supreme Court to try the 365 offences mentioned in the former Ordinance, though with a Jury (Sect. 3)
Mandate Sect. I. Whether to dispense with a Jury in cases like Hugh (Sect. I understand the opinion of the Law Officers not to dispense with a Jury in the Local Legislature)
Sanction & is that clear?
20/11
I think the answer of the Law Officers, taken with the terms of the 1st question, show that the Law Officers were of the opinion that a Jury could not be dispensed with in cases of Piracy on the High Seas or committed acts of Piracy according to British Law.
Those are the cases referred to in the 7th question.
Sir E. Rogers, I assume the case was drafted upon the new Ordinance.
7/12
Cut 21
So there is still no conclusion with Vicary Whitley on the scope?
03/12
& is it clear that the abolition, in Holland?
By 6/12
Page 365
MY THE
28/11
...
Page ...
WTH
who have Tiracqorlighter tam
...
The Lai's Offreen (11401),
127/11
Sir 7. Rogen
Molland
the you happy
remember,
But
reported that the High Can't could not thy cases
committed
they taught there was Mirace
in the Wijhe Jean.
no objection
provision of order its 9. 1866 so for randed Cases ange
within
Juriscretion of the Mount
That Ar
aphore
Where
hary
bead,
conformech, & there for. thest
сам. И по
the
Section
to sauctioning. present ordinance. ubach Euerra
To the
the
Chef
>
A
Supreme Court to try
the
365
offences ment! in next y
of the former Winance, though with a Jury (sect 3)
M
Mand seet. I. Whackte dispense
-
with
Jezin
Wie Hugh (anat. I understand the onion ofther Lawr
officers no to the inalalety / the Local Leperlative to
disperse with a Jury, huffly to those caces culy which were mentioned in the first question put to
Vkena -
Sanchon
& is that clear
20
MY THE
28/11
I think the answer of the Low Officers,
taken with
the terms of the 1" question shew that the L. Officen Jumar
Wh
to
that is fury could not be dispersed with I Loral adriance in cases of trick of frequen who ham Commented Piracy on the high heas to Bouljeets
or the high tem
Committed ants of Piracy accord. B. Law. m.
A
those are the cones referred bin the 7th
question -
вай
Sir E. Rogers, I abom the case was
drafted apun
in the new
WTH
who hav
Tiracqorlighter tam
7/12
cut 21
So there is still no Cottodeal with Vicary whighters on scope?
03 176
$/12.
& is it clear that the abstition,
In Holland
Buy 6/12
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.