was not entered on the Ship's manifest. I suppose the Court took the view that the Magistrate could only forfeit opium (see ss. 35, 776) found in possession of a person who had not the valid certificate required by s. 19(1). The Attorney General is prepared to amend the Ordinance so as to allow forfeiture of opium not entered on the ship's manifest even though it is covered by a permit from the Pawn Farmer, but only proposes to amend it so as to take effect when the farm is next let.
In desp 569/98, it was proposed that certain amendments take effect when their farm is next let, because we did not think it right to interfere with the lawful profits which the Farmer expected under the Law as it stood when he took the farm; profits made by smuggling into China are not lawful profits.
If the Farmer is an accomplice, of course we must assume he cannot object to suffering. Then Strapp's manifest are prima facie evidence that he or his abettors wish to import into China. For this reason, I would ask that s. 3 of Ord. 21 of 1897 should be amended at once by altering the words "shall if forfeited by a magistrate" to "shall be forfeited by a magistrate" [that effect].
I cannot help thinking that Dr. Logan was hardly treated being sent to prison for the costs in the Appeal, and that the Attorney General might have appeared on the appeal, or put forward the best argument that could be in support of the Magistrate's decision, as it seems to me that it is quite arguable that this Magistrate was right. The language of the first part of the clause is emphatic; "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary" and seems to me might signify an intention to empower the Magistrate to use his discretion as to forfeiting or not.
In Johnson's case, the distinction between lawful and unlawful profits is drawn, not...
was not entered on the Ship's
when
manifest. Isuppose
the Court took the open that the Magistrate could only forfeit opium (see ss. 35,776) w found in possession of a person who had not the valid certificate
I understand that
Enc. 2) required by 5.19(1). The Autres heiseral
Eiseral Fell
is prepared to amend the Ordinan to as to allow forfeiture of offimm not entered on the shisen manifest Even though it in covered by a permit from the paine Farmer, but "
only proposes to amend it wole so ad to take effect when the farm fo next let
In
品
desp
h
569./98-
น
proposed & certain am
Iments
WA
to take effect when their faran "next let, because we did note think it right to interfere with the lawful profits which the Farmer Expected under the Law as it stood when he took the daren; list profeite made by sunggling into Cia are not lawful profits.
if the Farmer is an
kmesk
Course we must assume
cannot object to sulering
/
and
Des
he
7
then strapp's
manifest are puum that he or his ablies wish to import into China.
For this reasm
I would
ASK
distinct the for. that I. 3d of
Ord. 21 of 1897 shunted be amended
at a
once by altering
"word's shall
if forfeited by a magistrate
to "shall be forfeited by a magistration
"that effect].
(or words
I cannot help thinking that
hardly treated
Dr. Logan
iin
was verz
being went to prison for the costs in the Appeal, and that the Attome, General might to have appeared
the appeal, u to have fut to defend
to be
forward the best argument could in support of the Magistrates decision, as it seems to me that
it is quite arguable that thin Imagistrate
way
right. The language
of first print of the clause invert Emphatic; Notwithstanding anything de any opinn & and seems to me mogte
ི་སབག tognatify her to empower the decisio Magistrate to use" In J. Counter
Ant in view of toujours
S.
doubt should
be removed by mending the Ayce
discretion as
In Wingfie
His absolute
to forfeiting.
or not?
In Johnson's distinction blaum Caiet and unlawful perfils is by cacions, hot.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.