Lancashire hearing By therefore the Magistrate or Court is authorised to put to the prisoner questions not, "and torogate any question's which at may "express option given to the prisoner to answer or not and consult.
"statutory declaration making "prisoner says cordeme. know whether Juries 322 354 inclusive exuption It is India any what the I do not under suchons are the rule or the unnecessary for me to suggest whether the Indian Code is or not an improvement on the English Law or otherwise.
It is an entire Code professedly applicable to India alone; and con to us that to Framer and Lord Macauley I confess my inability to criticise it procedure but this I Dilarang Framand the Penal Code hot then the part of one of an entirely new Code with an all its adaptability of parts to the whole.
The third and last question is whether Ordinance No 3 of 1872 ought to be law in Hong Kong. Seker now now altered by Ordinance 492 has since 1688 been English Law; & as part of the same Law it has remained since 1844 up to this time unchanged in Hong Kong. It is I believe unquestioned rule that every law of long existing should be retained unless and until a necessity for change has been clearly substantiated.
I disagree with the Acting General Mr. Hayllar when as Attorney General he says "must be armed with the power of interrogating prisoners". As to the practice in England authority agrees with him but he adds "lamentable failures of justice sometimes this Colony under an unelastic criminal procedure it is not to be wondered at where asserts but he no one has ever asserted it is certain that no one has proved that there have been failures of Justice been asserted by the "daily press" that Ahdoola Moussa and W...
Lanc
hearing By therefore the Magistrate or. Coust is aushoused to put to the prisoner
questions not, "and to rubrogate. any question's
think purper with an
which at
may
"
"express option given to the pusoner to
ansiver or not and conshout.
"statutory declaraton
declarahon making
" pusoner says cordeme.
know whicher Juries
322
354 unlusive
exuption
It is
India
any what the Idonot
under suchons
are the rule
or the
unnecessary for me to suggest
whechen the Indian Code is onnok an improvement on the English Law or
otherwise
It is an entire Code
profecusly appliable to India alone;
and con
tous
that to Framer anal
+
considering Lord Macauley I confess my
inability to critiuse it
procedine
but this
I
Dilarang Framand th
Penal Code hot then th
part of one of an entirely on
new_Code with an
all its
adaptability of
arts to the whole
parts.
The thud and last
question
д
1872
is whecher Ordinance No 3
ought to be law in Hong long. Seker
now
now altered by Ordinance
492
has since
1688 been English Law; & as part of the same Law it has remamed suvie 1844 up to this time unchanged in Hong Kong It is I behers unquestioned puler that
every
an
law
of long existime should be retained unless and until
a
a
A
necessity for
change has been clearly substantiated I dwagree with the Aiking
General Mr. Hayllar when as
Attorney Gendron
Any J
general proposition be
zverr
Cotte
that
trv
says
the
Juage
be considers.
" must be armed with the power of " interrogating pusoners
As to the
practie in
England
anchority
of
agrees
with him but he adds
"lamentable fartures of justice sometimes this Colony under an unelastic criminal procedure it is
decur zw
system of
"not to be coondered at
where asserts
but he
no one has ever asserted
it is artans that no one,
has proved
at pinza
that there have been, failures of
Justure
ban asserted
Que
cale
by
that
It. has
the "daily press" that
Ahdoola Moussa
and
W
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.