(4.) In s. 6 the second & third provisos are taken from the Criminal Law Amendment Act and are also in the Straits Ordinance. They were omitted from the Ordinance by oversight and should be allowed without remark? As to the first proviso & as to the effect of this whole section, refer to CO 882/4 (forwarding a Memorial from the Chinese Subject) No. 18604.
(5) I'm sorry that in drafting we omitted by an oversight the provision as to debts and legal proceedings for the recovery of a debt which occurs in s.4(2)(c) of the Straits Ord., and the reason for which is given in par. 4 of desp. to Straits of 5 Mar. 1889. I suggest that such words be added when occasion may arise for amending this Ordinance.
(6) In s.14(3) the words "in any case within subsection 1 or 2" have been added to the draft Ord., proposal, I think, with the effect of the section being now the same as s. 5 (1) of the Straits Ord.
(7) In the same section 14, the words "and shall not be trained or used as a prostitute" were very properly added.
(8) S.20 was not in the Draft, but see par. 7,56 of H.M.'s letter of 15.9.1880. I think it may stand as it is. Your covering despatch left it to the Governor to introduce such a provision (as in Straits Ord.) if he thought fit.
(10) In s.21(2), the addition of the words "if he knowingly allows such place to be used as a brothel" is unobjectionable (similar words are in the Criminal Law Amendment Act, s.13). But notwithstanding the Attorney General's Report on this section, I consider the requirement of the fiat of the A.G. to be superfluous, cumbrous, and likely to lead to delay, which in some cases may enable the guilty parties to escape, and the young girls (perhaps) who have been employed in the unregistered brothel to hide away. I was responsible to say that in the S. of State's dispatch this proviso was referred to above "if he knowingly allows" being for protection, and direct that when next the Ord. is amended, these words be omitted, adding that an amending Ord. need not be introduced for this purpose alone.
(11) In s.21(5), the addition of the words "subsections 1, 2, and 3 of" need not be objected to, as there seems no necessity to limit subsection 4 also to include Europeans and not to.
(12) In s.33(3), the penalty is put at $500 (as in Straits Ord.) instead...
(4.). In s. 6 the second & Mird
provisoes
are
taken from
Ma
Criminal Law Amendment Act
are also in the Thaits Ordinance.
The ey
were
amitted from
Ordinance by
A
draft.
oversight
be allowed without remark? As to the first proviso & as
of this whole section
muinte
- B
to effect
Lee
further
18604 (forwarding. a
Memorial from the Chemiese Subject)
No
(5) Jam sorry that in drafting we omitted by an oversight. provisim
F
as to debtslagen legal proceedings for the recovery of an
debt which occurs in 1.4(2)(c) of the Straits &rd. & the reason for which
given in par. 4
desp. to Straits of 5 hr. 1889
? Singgest that such words be added hereafter arise when occasin may
for amending this Ordinanc
(6) s.14(3) the ward "in any
བ
within subsection 1 or 2" have been added to the draft Ord., propzol, I think, we the effect of the section 8. 5 (1) of the Straits Ord. being now the same (7) In same section 14 words" and shall
not be trained ye
as a prostitute very properly added?
an
(8) 1.20 was not in an
are
also
Draft, but pan.)
7.56 of H.1.59-1880
dette.
p.4of
MK
I think it may
js.
R
Your covering despite left it to foverner f
to introduce such a provision (as in Shants Ord. ) if he thought fit.
Stand as it is
M.5/12 K
B.
K
(10) 4.21(2)
The addition
f
A
words "if he knowingly allons Sund27
place to be used as a brothel"
поедата
are
unobjectimable (similar wade are in the Criminal Law Aen. Act. 5.13] but notwithstanding
the attomey
General's Report on this section, I consider the requirement
A
& then.
fiat of the A. G. is superfluous, cumbrous and likely to lead to delay
which in same
casey maz
Enable
the guilty parties to escape, & to
the young girls (perhaps) have been employed in tie unregistered brothel.
hide away who
mony
Wasa, responsiz ser that the Shwillan vazndavant Matte produs lendastadeley. ? & say that in S. of State's Spinin this provisio in
з
then
proviso referred to above "if he
sufficient Kunmingly Ju" benj
protection, and direct that when next the Ord. is an
Ded
These
was be mmitted, adding that an
Ord. need not be introduced for this purpose alone
(11) In 21(5) this addition of
Mar
word "subsections 1,2×3 of " need not be objected to, an
there seems
Ho
necessity to limit subsection 4 also
Asia
include Europeans
A
not to
(12) hus. 33(3) the penalty is put at $850 (as in Straits Ord. ) instead
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.