CO129-260 - Governor Sir Robinson Acting Governor O-Brien - 1893 [9-12] — Page 536

( 22 )

I mention that I have just received from the Company's Solicitor, his

may bill for legal expenses incurred in connection with the case, amounting to $37.25 which I hope will be taken into consideration by His Excellency when fixing the amount to be awarded to the Company.

I have the honour to be,

Sir,

Your most obedient Servant,

THOS. ARNOLD, Secretary.

The Honourable G. T. M. O'Brien, C.M.G.,

Colonial Secretary.

No. 973.

SIR,

COLONIAL SECRETARY'S OFFICE,

HONGKONG, 10th July, 1893.

R. v. Lam Sui and another.

In reply to your letter of the 5th instant, I am directed to inform you that the Magistrate's decision bas been appealed against in the regular course, and that

a case has been duly stated for the opinion of the Supreme Court.

His Excellency's decision must, therefore, await the result of the appeal.

THOMAS ARNOLD, Esq., Secretary,

Hር

I have the bonour to be,

Sir,

Your most obedient Servant,

Hongkong, Canton & Macao Steam-boat Co., L.d.,

&c.,

&c.

G. T. M. O'BRIEN,

Colonial Secretary.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONGKONG.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION,

Between LAM YIK and LAM SU, Appellants,

and

THE QUEEN by JAMES HENRY LOGAN, Respondent.

This is a case stated by the undersigned, a Magistrate of the Colony of Hongkong, under the Magistrates' Ordinance, No. 10 of 1890, for the purpose of Appeal to the Supreme Court on a question of law which arose before me as herein. after stated-

1. At the Police Court of Victoria in this Colony on the 6th day of June, 1893, a Complaint preferred by JAMES HENRY LOGAN hereinafter called the "Respondent." against one LAM YIK and another LAM SU hereinafter called the “Appellants,” for that they the said Appellants were unlawfully in possession of

( 23 )

two hundred and fifty taels of prepared opium which did not appear on the manifest on board the steam-ship Fatshan, then about to proceed to Canton on the 5th day of June, 1893, contrary to Ordinance 21 of 1891, and upon such hearing I discharged the Appellants, and ordered that the said two hundred and fifty tacls of prepared opium should be forfeited, and detained until the disposal thereof had been determined by the Governor in Council, under the provisions of Section 38 of Ordinance No. 21 of 1891.

2. And whereas the Appellants being dissatisfied with my determination upon the hearing of the said Complaint and alleging themselves to be aggrieved by such determination as being erroneous in point of law, have pursuant to Section 99 of the Magistrates' Ordinance, No. 10 of 1890, duly applied to me in writing to state and sign a case, setting forth the facts and the grounds of such determina- tion as aforesaid in order that they may appeal to the Full Court and have duly entered into a Recognizance as required by the said Ordinance on that behalf.

3. Now, therefore, I, the said Magistrate, in compliance with the said uppli cation do hereby state and sign the following ease.

4. Upon the hearing of the Complaint it was proved on the part of the Respondent and found as a fact →

(a) That the Respondent is the Chief Preventive Officer of the Hong- kong, Canton and Macao Steam-boat Company, Limited, and that he is employed as such for the purpose of detecting any opium taken on board the said Company's steamers which does not appear on the manifest of such steamers.

(b) That on the 5th day of June, 1893, the Respondent went on board the said Company's steamer Fatshan then lying alongside the said Company's Wharf in Victoria Harbour in the waters of this Colony and then about to proceed to Cauton, and in performance of his duty searched the baggage of the Appellants who were then and there on board the said steamer.

(c) That the Respondent found in the baggage of each of the Appellants two tins containing 125 taels of prepared opium, which said prepared opium did not appear on the manifest of the said steaner. (d) That the Appellant LAM YIK then produced a certificate from the Hau Fook Opium Farm for the possession of 356 taels of prepared opium in six tins.

5. It was contended on behalf of the Respondent that although the 250 taels of prepared opium contained in the four tins found in the baggage of the Appellants may have formed part of the 356 taels of prepared opium contained in the six tins named in the certificate from the Ilau Fook Opium Farm, the said 250 taels of prepared opium did not appear on the vessel's manifest and was therefore subject to forfeiture under Section 38 of Ordinance 21 of 1891,

6. On behalf of the Appellants it was contended that the possession of the 250 taels of prepared opium being covered by a valid certificate from the Hau Fook Opinia Farm it was lawfully in the possession of the Appellants and therefore not subject to seizure and could not be forfeited.

7. I being of opinion however that the words "Notwithstanding anything in this Ordinance contained" in the first clause of Section 38 of Ordinance 21 of 1891 contemplate and authorize the forfeiture (whether held under a valid certificate or not) of "Any opium seized on board of any steamship bound or "about to proceed to the ports of Canton or Macao which does not appear on the "manifest of such vessel" and that the evidence given before me brought the case within the operation of Section 38 of Ordinance No. 21 of 1891, gave my determi nation against the Appellants in the manner aforesaid.

533