(2)
but it must not be forgotten that the extent of the control actually established must be gathered not from any general inferences to be drawn from the history of opium or from considerations of public policy but from the words of the Ordinance itself. Judicially the Court knows nothing of the intention of the Legislature except from the words by which it has expressed itself. The 6th section, then, with a view of regulating and controlling the movement of raw opium, enacts that no person (with certain exceptions not applicable to the present case) shall have in his possession or under his custody or control opium in quantities less than one chest. Now it seems impossible to apply to the word "chests" in this section the definition of "chest of opium" set forth above, because although the package in which the opium is imported is naturally included in that definition it could not with any regard to the meaning of language have any reference to the quantities of opium the possession of which is made illegal. The quantity or quantities of opium in actual possession must be the same whether in or out of the package, and “chest,” when used, as here, as a measure of quantity, must mean the contents of a chest, or rather the quantity a chest can contain. How then could a person in possession of the contents of several chests of opium be said at the same time to be in possession of it "in quantities less than a chest"? Certainly if part of the contents of a chest were separately dealt with and became the subject of distinct and separate possession it would be rightly deemed a separate quantity, and in this way a person who was possessed of the contents of several chests of opium might by dividing it be deemed in one sense to possess such opium in quantities less than one chest, but it seems to us that where the possession is the same the contents of several chests can be rightly regarded as one quantity only. One hundred balls, for example, would in as long as the balls were together, in natural and ordinary language be spoken of as one quantity, and it could make no difference in this respect whether they were in a heap at the bottom of a boat or placed there in bags for removal.
We are therefore of opinion that the expression "less than a chest" in section 6 must and can only be held to mean "less than the quantity a chest can contain;" and as the appellants were in possession of one quantity of opium only and that quantity greatly exceeded the contents of a chest, they cannot be rightly said to have been in possession of opium "in quantities less than one chest." Appeal allowed, with costs.
Conviction set aside.
The Acting Attorney-General said with regard to the question of costs he should like to point out that a number of convictions had been obtained under this sixth section and this was the first time in which such convictions had been appealed against in the Supreme Court. He did not think it was a case in which the costs should be given, particularly as respondent was an Inspector of Police.
The Acting Chief Justice could only say with reference to the Acting Attorney-General's remarks that there appeared to have been a large number of wrongful convictions. As to the respondent being an Inspector of Police, it was a matter for the Government to consider whether he ought to bear the costs.
Mr. POLLOCK asked for the costs of the trial at the Police Court.
The Acting Attorney-General said it was not in their lordships' jurisdiction to give costs at the Police Court.
Mr. POLLOCK said they had been put to considerable loss by previous convictions, and also by this opium in question being kept in this way. It suffered considerably by such detention. He submitted their lordships had full power to give costs from the beginning.
The Acting Chief Justice said he was not sure that they had the power to award costs in the Magistrate's Court. Even if they had he did not know that this was a case where they would do so.
They gave the costs of the appeal only.
No. 2482.
(3)
COLONIAL SECRETARY'S OFFICE,
5th October, 1889.
I am directed by the Governor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 2nd instant regarding a further seizure of prepared Opium alleged to be attempted to be conveyed, illicitly, on board the Steam Ship Honam; and to state that His Excellency is obliged for the information, as throwing further light on a subject which is receiving his earnest attention.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your most obedient Servant,
F. H. MAY,
Acting Assistant Colonial Secretary.
THOS. ARNOLD, Esq.,
Secretary,
Hongkong, Canton & Macao Steam-boat Co., Ld.
OFFICE OF THE HONGKONG, CANTON & MACAO STEAM-BOAT COMPANY, LIMITED.
HONGKONG, 5th October, 1889.
Dear Sir,
We beg to enclose for the perusal of your Chamber, six copies of a pamphlet we have had printed detailing fully the hardship and difficulties with which our trade is surrounded in the running of river steamers between this Port and Canton owing to the oppressive legislation of this Colony.
We need not enlarge here upon the case which is so fully set forth in the printed matter herewith, but we do hope that we may receive the aid of your Chamber's support to help us in redressing the grievances to which our trade is subjected.
We remain,
Yours faithfully,
THOS. ARNOLD,
Secretary, Hongkong, Canton & Macao Steam-bout Co., Limited.
ULLARTON HENDERSON, Esq.
Secretary, Hongkong Chamber of Commerce.
BUTTERFIELD & SWIRE,
Agents,
China Navigation Co., Limited.
HONGKONG GENERAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
HONGKONG, 12th October, 1889.
I have to thank you for your esteemed favour of 5th instant and pamphlet, both having reference to the vexed question of Smuggling on board the River Steamers.
523
(2)
but it must not be forgotten that the extent of the control actually established must: be gathered not from any general inferences to be drawn from the history of opium or from considerations of public policy but from the words of the Ordinance itself, Judicially the Court knows nothing of the intention of the Legislature except from the words by which it has expressed itself. The 6th section, then, with a view of regulating and controlling the movement of raw opium, enacts that no person (with certain exceptions not applicable to the present case) shall have in his pos- session or under his custody or control opium in quantities less than one chest. Now it seems impossible to apply to the word "chiests" in this section the definition of "chest of opium" set forth above, because although the package in which the opium is imported is naturally included in that definition it could not with any regard to the meaning of language have any reference to the quantities of opium the possession of which is made illegal. The quantity or quantities of opium in actual possession must be the same whether in or out of the package, and “chest,” when used, as here, as a measure of quantity, must mean the contents of a chest, or rather the quantity a chest can contain. How then could a person in possession of the contents of several chests of opium be said at the same time to be in possession of it "in quantities less than a chest"? Certainly if part of the contents of a chest were separately dealt with and became the subject of distinct and separate possession it would be rightly deemed a separate quantity, and in this way a person who was possessed of the contents of several chests of opium might by dividing it be deemed in one sense to possess such opium in quantities less than one chest, but it seems to us that where the possession is the same the contents of several chests can be rightly regarded as one quantity only. One hundred balls, for example, would in as long as the balls natural and ordinary language be spoken of as one quantity were together, and it could make no difference in this respect whether they were in We are there- a heap at the bottom of a boat or placed there in bags for removal.
fore of opinion that the expression "less than a chest" in section 6 must and can only be held to mean "less than the quantity a chest can contain;" and as the appellants were in possession of one quantity of opium only and that quantity greatly exceeded the contents of a chest, they cannot be rightly said to have been in possession of opium "in quantities less than one chest." Appeal allowed, with
Conviction set aside.
costs.
The Acting Attorney-General said with regard to the question of costs he should like to point out that a number of convictions had been obtained under this sixth section and this was the first time in which such convictions had been appealed against in the Supreme Court. He did not think it was a case in which the costs should be given, particularly as respondent was au Inspector of Police.
The Acting Chief Justice could only say with reference to the Acting Attorney- General's remarks that there appeared to have been a large number of wrongful convictions. As to the respondent being an Inspector of Police, it was a matter for the Government to consider whether he ought to hear the costs.
Mr. POLLOCK asked for the costs of the trial at the l'olice Court.
The Acting Attorney-General said it was not in their lordships' jurisdiction
to give costs at the Police Court,
Mr. POLLOCK said they had been put to considerable loss by previous convict- ions, and also by this opium in question being kept in this way. It suffered He submitted their lordships had full power to considerably by such detention. give costs from the beginning.
The Acting Chief Justice said he was not sure that they had the power to award costs in' the Magistrate's Court. Even if they had he did not know that
They gave the costs of the appeal only. this was a case where they would do so.
No. 2482.
SIR,
(3)
COLONIAL SECRETARY'S OFFICE,
5th October, 1889.
I am directed by the Governor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 2nd instant regarding a further seizure of prepared Opium alleged to be attempted to be conveyed, illicitly, on board the Steam Ship Honam; and to state that His Excellency is obliged for the information, as throwing further light on a subject which is receiving his earnest attention.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
THOS. ARNOLD, Esq.,
Secretary,
Hanghong, Canton & Macao Steam-boat Co., Ld.
DEAR SIR,
Your most obedient Servant,
F. H. MAY,
Acting Assistant Colonial Secretary.
OFFICE OF THE HONGKONG, CANTON & Macao STEAM-BOAT COMPANY, LIMITED.
HONGKONG, 5th October, 1889.
We beg to enclose for the perusal of your Chamber, six copies of a pamphlet we have had printed detailing fully the hardship and difficulties with which our trade is surrounded in the rumming of river steamers between this Port and Canton owing to the oppressive legislation of this Colony.
We need not enlarge here upon the case which is so fully set forth in the printed matter herewith, but we do hope that we may receive the aid of your Chamber's support to help us in redressing the traminels to which our trade is subjected.
We remain,
ULLARTON HENDERSON, Esq.
Secretary, Ionghong Chamber of Commerce.
DEAR SIRS,
Dear Sir,
Yours faithfully,
THOS. ARNOLD,
Secretary, Hongkong, Canton & Ineno Steam-bout Coy,, Limited.
BUTTERFIELD & SWIRE,
Agents,
China Navigation Coy., Limited.
HONGKONG GENERAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, HONGKONG, 12th October, 1889.
I have to thank
you for your
esteemed favour of 5th instant and pamphlet, both having reference to the vexed question of Smuggling on board the River Steamers.
523
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.