CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8] — Page 95

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

6

(5) that he committed

the park

by

o judgment in Unding in Curt an

Extract from the opinion of the Acting Attorney General communicated to him in this letter

let's letter

reading

in

g

20 Sept. and again

Court in the current y

in the extradition can

the Cl: text's letter

Au

his judgment

what from

23 February and

we in this.

7

30 para

that the disapproval after conduct in that aspect conveyed by the Gov. letter

was deserved

] 784 that the Acting Attorney General

81

W

fully justified by the language used by Mr Wedchem in

announcing his decision in

4 adjourn the Extradition case

in assuming

his his report of 26 Sept that Wodehouse; in reason for much adjournment, was that related to guided in his decision of the result of the bribing case.

and that Mr Wodehouse.

subsequent villain

a

different reason

rendered

for the adjournment is not consistent with his previous statements.

ix that the Acting Attorney General acted

strictly within his powers in

directing

nolle prosequi in the case

13

of the charge

subornation of perjury

and as stand

had nothing to do with that case

that case he might

end to have imported it into his memorial

With regard to the 4.

Premervil

the

I would

Lag

portion of the

Bat

MINUTE PAPER.

11) Mr Woodchense's conduct that

prima facie

decision that had t

case was made out against the three sinners appears the inconsistent with the view and what h wodied in expressed in his judgment and still more Despatch

strongly in his letter K the Coliled? May of the evidence upon which he decided and his conduct displayed a compulsion.

7

mind shock

An

2

unaccountable

(2) that he seems to have considered that

it was y

with

he committed

Out

**

consequence

how on whether

discharged the prisoners

the responsibility of deciding whether they should be surrendered would wash with in Council whereas it was his

learned

the former

plain duty, as he would have now

from the judgment of the Supreme Court to examine to his judgment

As

15 Whether.

the wider schelleche a prima facie

case in the same

the case

of a charge

18

in manner

CALL

in

preliminary Examination,

indictable offence committed

an

within his jurisdiction.

91

Edit History

2026-05-25 16:55:10 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
6 (5) that he committed the park by o judgment in Unding in Curt an Extract from the opinion of the Acting Attorney General communicated to him in this letter let's letter reading in g 20 Sept. and again Court in the current y in the extradition can the Cl: text's letter Au his judgment what from 23 February and we in this. 7 30 para that the disapproval after conduct in that aspect conveyed by the Gov. letter was deserved ] 784 that the Acting Attorney General 81 W fully justified by the language used by Mr Wedchem in announcing his decision in 4 adjourn the Extradition case in assuming his his report of 26 Sept that Wodehouse; in reason for much adjournment, was that related to guided in his decision of the result of the bribing case. and that Mr Wodehouse. subsequent villain a different reason rendered for the adjournment is not consistent with his previous statements. ix that the Acting Attorney General acted strictly within his powers in directing nolle prosequi in the case 13 of the charge subornation of perjury and as stand had nothing to do with that case that case he might end to have imported it into his memorial With regard to the 4. Premervil the I would Lag portion of the Bat MINUTE PAPER. 11) Mr Woodchense's conduct that prima facie decision that had t case was made out against the three sinners appears the inconsistent with the view and what h wodied in expressed in his judgment and still more Despatch strongly in his letter K the Coliled? May of the evidence upon which he decided and his conduct displayed a compulsion. 7 mind shock An 2 unaccountable (2) that he seems to have considered that it was y with he committed Out ** consequence how on whether discharged the prisoners the responsibility of deciding whether they should be surrendered would wash with in Council whereas it was his learned the former plain duty, as he would have now from the judgment of the Supreme Court to examine to his judgment As 15 Whether. the wider schelleche a prima facie case in the same the case of a charge 18 in manner CALL in preliminary Examination, indictable offence committed an within his jurisdiction. 91
Baseline (Original)
6 (5) that he committed te park bry o judgment in Unding in Curt an Extract from the opinion ofthe Acting attorney Sineral communicated to him in this let- let's letter reading in g 20 Mpt. and again Court in the currn y in the setradition can the Cl: text's letter Au вой his pudymad whart from 23 February and we in this. 7 30 pe that the disapproval after conduct in that aspect conveyed by the God. letter was deserved ] 784 that the Acting Memes fineral 81 W fully justified by the language used by MWedchem in ancancing his duis in 4 adjiere the Extradition ware in apuming iis his report of 26 tpt that wowedchen; in reason for much adjourment, was that re arted to guided in his decision of the result of the berging case. and that Mr Wodehouse. subsequent villain a different reason renated for the adjournment is not casis with his previous statements. ix that the Acting Attomy fineral acted strith within his peores in helle prosequi in the care 13 directing care of the charger subornation of perjury and as stand had nothing to do with that case that case he might end to have imported it into his memorial With regard, 4the 4. Premervil the I would Lag portion of the Bat MINUTE PAPER. 11) Mr Woodchense's comedy that prima facie decesin that had t case was made ent against the tre siners appears the inconsistent with the view and wat h wodied in expressed in his judgment and still more Despatch strongly in his letter K the Celiled? May of the windince upon which he decided and his conduct displayed & compusion. 7 mind whock An 2 unaccountable (2) that he seems Whave aonsidered that it was y with he committed Qut ** crusquence how on whether discharged the prisoners the respenstitit of deciding whether they thould I surrendered would wash with in Mouncil whereas it was his learned the former phan duty, as he with have now from the judgment of the Supreme Court to exarsin to his pudgment As 15 Wether. the wider schelleche a primi pacie puilla in the same the case of a chayeg 18 ar manner CALL in preliminary Examination, indictable offence committe an within his paris dection. 91
2026-05-25 16:55:10 · Baseline
View content

6

(5) that he committed

te park

bry

o judgment in Unding in Curt an

Extract from the opinion ofthe Acting attorney Sineral communicated to him in this let-

let's letter

reading

in

g

20 Mpt. and again

Court in the currn y

in the setradition can

the Cl: text's letter

Au

вой

his pudymad

whart from

23 February and

we in this.

7

30 pe

that the disapproval after conduct in that aspect conveyed by the God. letter

was deserved

] 784 that the Acting Memes fineral

81

W

fully justified by the language used by MWedchem in

ancancing his duis in

4 adjiere the Extradition ware

in apuming

iis his report of 26 tpt that wowedchen; in reason for much adjourment, was that re arted to guided in his decision of the result of the berging case.

and that Mr Wodehouse.

subsequent villain

a

different reason

renated

for the adjournment is not casis with his previous statements.

ix that the Acting Attomy fineral acted

strith within his peores in

helle prosequi in the care

13

directing

care of the charger

subornation of perjury

and as stand

had nothing to do with that case

that case he might

end to have imported it into his memorial

With regard, 4the 4.

Premervil

the

I would

Lag

portion of the

Bat

MINUTE PAPER.

11) Mr Woodchense's comedy that

prima facie

decesin that had t

case was made ent against the tre siners appears the inconsistent with the view and wat h wodied in expressed in his judgment and still more Despatch

strongly in his letter K the Celiled? May of the windince upon which he decided and his conduct displayed & compusion.

7

mind whock

An

2

unaccountable

(2) that he seems Whave aonsidered that

it was y

with

he committed

Qut

**

crusquence

how on whether

discharged the prisoners

the respenstitit of deciding whether they thould I surrendered would wash with in Mouncil whereas it was his

learned

the former

phan duty, as he with have now

from the judgment of the Supreme Court to exarsin to his pudgment

As

15 Wether.

the wider schelleche a primi pacie

puilla in the same

the case

of a chayeg

18

ar manner

CALL

in

preliminary Examination,

indictable offence committe

an

within his paris dection.

91

Comments

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

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.