APPENDIX.
SIR,
HONGKONG, 11th August, 1893.
On behalf of Mr. JAMES H. LOGAN I beg to address you on the following subject.
On the 5th June last at about 5.45 P.M., Mr. LOGAN found in two bundles, owned respectively by LAM YIK and LAM SU, about 250 taels of Opium. The two Chinese were passengers on the Fatshun then about to proceed to Canton, and the Opium was not on the ship's Manifest.
Mr. LOGAN thereupon called to Sergt. FORD, 44, who took the Opium to the Station and requested the two Chinese to follow him there. I appeared at the Police Court on behalf of Mr. LOGAN and asked that under Section 38 of Ordinance 21 of 1891, the Opium might be forfeited and detained until its disposal had been determined by the Governor in Council. Mr. DENNYS opposed my application but the Magistrate (Capt. HASTINGS) granted it. From that time Mr. LOGAN had nothing more to do with the case—nor had I as his Solicitor.
On the 8th August inst., an Appeal from Capt. HASTINGS' decision was heard before the Full Court. In the Daily Press report of that appeal it states that Mr. LOGAN was the respondent and appeared in person—but this is quite erroneous—Mr. LOGAN merely went to the Court to hear the arguments having previously requested Mr. ARNOLD, the Steam-boat Company's Secretary, to give him leave so to do. The respondent was the Crown, but the Attorney General did not appear at the hearing of the appeal. In the result the Court allowed the appeal with costs against Mr. LOGAN.
It is on this question of costs that I am now writing. When once Mr. LOGAN had obtained at the Police Court the forfeiture of the Opium his functions were fully discharged—and he had nothing more to do with the matter. The Crown then became the Respondent to the appeal and Mr. LOGAN had no locus standi—costs should have been given I submit against the Crown and not against Mr. LOGAN. The latter himself stated in Court that he thought that the Attorney General was the respondent. My object then in writing to-day is to express the hope that if costs are really demanded from Mr. LOGAN, His Excellency will assume the responsibility for these costs.
Mr. LOGAN, as is well known, is a Preventive Officer for the Steam-boat Company, but the latter, having regard to the fact that Mr. LOGAN was no party to the appeal, cannot in the interests of its shareholders, pay any costs, and Mr. ARNOLD has so informed me.
I am, Sir,
Your most obedient Servant,
VICTOR H. DEACON.
The Honourable
GEORGE T. M. O'BRIEN, C.M.G.,
Colonial Secretary.
537
Page 540
Page 541
APPENDIX.
SIR,
HONGKONG, 11th August, 1893.
On behalf of Mr. JAMES H. LOGAN I beg to address you on the following subject.
On the 5th June last at about 5.45 P.M., Mr. LOGAN found in two bundles, owned respectively by LAM YIK and LAM Su, about 250 taels of Opium. The two Chinese were passengers ou the Fatshun then about to proceed to Cauton, and the Opium was not on the ship's Manifest.
Mr. LOGAN thereupon called to Sergt. FoRD, 44, who took the Opium to the Station and requested the two Chinese to follow him there. I appeared at the Police Court on behalf of Mr. LOGAN and asked that under Section 38 of Ordinance 21 of 1891, the Opium might be forfeited and detained until its disposal had been determined by the Governor in Council. Mr. DENNYS opposed my application but the Magistrate (Capt. HASTINGS) granted it. From that time Mr. LOGAN had nothing more to do with the case--nor had I as his Solicitor.
On the 8th August instaut, an Appeal from Capt. HASTINGS' decision was heard before the Full Court. In the Daily Press report of that appeal it states that Mr. LOGAN was the respondent and appeared in person-but this is quite erroneous—Mr. LOGAN merely went to the Court to hear the arguments having previously requested Mr. ARNOLD, the Steam-boat Company's Secretary, to give him leave so to do. The respondent was the Crown, but the Attorney General did not appear at the hearing of the appeal. In the result the Court allowed the appeal with costs against Mr. LOGAN.
It is on this question of costs that I am now writing. When once Mr. LOGAN had obtained at the Police Court the forfeiture of the Opium his functions were fully discharged---and he had nothing more to do with the matter. The Crown then became the Respondent to the appeal and Mr. LOGAN had no locus standi--- costs should have been given I submit against the Crown and not against Mr. LOGAN. The latter himself stated in Court that he thought that the Attorney General was the respondent. My object then in writing to-day is to express the hope that if costs are really demanded from Mr. LOGAN, His Excellency will assume the responsibility for these costs.
Mr. LOGAN, as is well known, is a Preventive Officer for the Steam-boat Company, but the latter, having regard to the fact that Mr. LOGAN was no party to the appeal, cannot in the interests of its shareholders, pay any costs, and Mr. ARNOLD has so informed rue.
I am, Sir,
Your most obedient Servant,
VICTOR H. DEACON.
The Honourable
GEORGE T. M. O'BRIEN, C.M.G.,
Colonial Secretary.
537
Page 540Page 541
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.