CO129-190 - Governor Hennessy - 1880 [10-12] — Page 435

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

diverport is in itself a sufficient reason for taking measures to prevent any similar uncertainty in the future.

3. He might be argued that if the Chief Justice had before 1864 the right to deal in Chambers with the disposal of matters arising in the ordinary jurisdiction of the Court, the 4th section of the Order of 1864 would have given him a similar right in Bankruptcy matters; the fact that he had this right in Bankruptcy matters might have made a rule under section 7 (1) unnecessary. Presumably this view could be taken in determining what matters could be taken in Chambers.

The question whether decisions in Chambers should be taken remains. Except that there is a right in the...

4. The question will remain whether in the absence of such a rule the Chief Justice and other Judges are entitled to determine at their discretion whether they will take or not take particular matters in Chambers.

The question is whether in the absence of such a rule the right of sitting in Chambers can be exercised and carried out in the discharge of any business at all, e.g. in the C.

5. It is most undesirable that a state of uncertainty should prevail in the Administration of justice, and you should therefore cable the conflicting views at once.

Edit History

2026-05-22 02:34:36 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
diverport is in itself a sufficient reason for taking measures to prevent any similar uncertainty in the future. 3. He might be argued that if the Chief Justice had before 1864 the right to deal in Chambers with the disposal of matters arising in the ordinary jurisdiction of the Court, the 4th section of the Order of 1864 would have given him a similar right in Bankruptcy matters; the fact that he had this right in Bankruptcy matters might have made a rule under section 7 (1) unnecessary. Presumably this view could be taken in determining what matters could be taken in Chambers. The question whether decisions in Chambers should be taken remains. Except that there is a right in the... 4. The question will remain whether in the absence of such a rule the Chief Justice and other Judges are entitled to determine at their discretion whether they will take or not take particular matters in Chambers. The question is whether in the absence of such a rule the right of sitting in Chambers can be exercised and carried out in the discharge of any business at all, e.g. in the C. 5. It is most undesirable that a state of uncertainty should prevail in the Administration of justice, and you should therefore cable the conflicting views at once.
Baseline (Original)
diverport is in itself a Sufficient wason for taking measures to prevent any Similar uncutainty in the future 3. He snight be argued that if the Chief Justice harde before 1964 the right to dit in Chanter for the disposne of inkilven similar matter within arising in the ordinary jurisdiction of the Cout, the 4th duction of the Order scf1864 would have given him a similar rishable that having this righet in Bankomplety matters; the This view power conce might hav make a rule unde duction 7 (1). Presenting not determine what matter titan but Ihmee Responly be taken in The question whether decomber Chambers. Excis that eight in the 4. The question haven will remain whether in the 422 "Abrener of such a rule the 432 Chief Justin Jame diner 1873 Johathen both Judge are, Entitled to determine at disertion whether they will will go take or particular Matter shoulde or math in indend should not be taken (hambus, ortion whether in the absen of sack wh the sight of witting in Chambers can be exersidad in they denis same there an carried with in the Digitale Rowen business at to dispose of any there all. Haple in the C. 5. It is most undesirable that a state of uncertainty Shoes mather Communitat wish upon any with the Administration of justion. and you Khould them for Faber at once emaile the confhiting eci
2026-05-22 02:34:36 · Baseline
View content

diverport is in itself a Sufficient wason for taking measures to prevent any

Similar uncutainty in the future

3. He snight

be

argued that

if the Chief Justice harde before 1964 the right to dit

in Chanter for the disposne

of inkilven similar matter

within

arising in the ordinary jurisdiction

of the Cout, the 4th duction of the

Order scf1864 would have

given him a similar rishable that having this righet

in Bankomplety matters; the

This view power conce

might hav

make a rule unde

duction 7 (1). Presenting not determine what matter

titan but

Ihmee

Responly be taken in

The question whether decomber Chambers.

Excis that eight in the

4. The question haven will remain whether in the

422

"Abrener of such a rule the

432

Chief Justin Jame diner 1873

Johathen both Judge

are,

Entitled to determine at

disertion whether they will

will go take or particular

Matter shoulde or

math in

indend

should not be taken

(hambus,

ortion whether in the absen

of sack wh the sight of witting

in Chambers can be exersidad in they denis same there an carried with in the Digitale Rowen business at to dispose of any

there

all. Haple in the C.

5. It is most undesirable that

a state of uncertainty Shoes

mather Communitat

wish upon any with the Administration of justion.

and you Khould them for Faber at once emaile the confhiting

eci

Comments

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

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.