I would unquestionably submit that section 17(3) and not section 16(3) was included to provide for the compensation of officers of the Vice Admiralty Court, but that the effect of section regards them is to prevent any claim to compensation arising until the Vice Admiralty Court remains in force. It seems to me that until new rules are made, such ex-officers cannot be said to "suffer any pecuniary loss in consequence of the abolition" of the Vice-Admiralty Court.
I would submit whether, if they were to receive compensation and their fees were to be transferred to the Treasury, the provisions of Section 10(3) would not have to be wholly ignored.
I confess that until His Lordship pointed it out, I had not noticed the distinction between the fee itself and the amount of the fee. I would respectfully suggest however that this was meant to meet the case (arising in Hongkong) of an officer of the Vice Admiralty Court not becoming an officer of the Colonial Court of Admiralty. Such an ex-officer would be entitled under the proviso to the amount of the fee but would not be in a position to take the fee itself.
At the risk of repeating a contention which I meant to present in my last letter, I would respectfully but confidently urge, that I am in fact and in the meaning of the Statute both the same person and "the officer who but for the passing of the Act would have been entitled...
Page 369
...
Page 372
## Notes on formatting No change of original text other than listed in the rules, and output is in HTML as instructed. The original text has been formatted into paragraphs using HTMLtags. The page numbers ("Page 369" and "Page 372") have been preserved as they were in the original text, indicating the original page breaks. Minor OCR errors have been corrected according to the rules. No rephrasing or rewriting has been done. The output is in HTML format as required.
I would' unquest
Mar.
nove 17(3)
and not rechn、 16(3) was inkudid
vo
e provide for the compensation of officers of the Vice Admiralty buh, but that the effect of section. regards them is to
,, ད、,
m falar
as
prevent
claim to compensation arising ratty Jules long as the Vice.
the Vice Admiralty,
umain in force. It secure to me that untio mw luies are made, such ex-officers cannot be said / in kie language of section 17(8)
"cuffer any peumiary coss in con- sequence of the abolition "of the Vice- Alumiralty Court.
I would subruit whether,
ཤབཤ་ཟ་ ·ཤ་ཤ་འུག26འའུ༼ཋ ཀྭའ་7}` /ཀ
vere to receive forear
Jangster
nt compensation
and their fees were there to be trans- ferred to the Frea
Treasury, the provisions of Section 10(3) would not have to in wholly ignored.
confess, that unlo
369
His Lordship pointed it out, I had
not noticed the distinction be heeen the fee itself and the a- mount of the fee. I would res- pectfully suggest however that this
iv
meant to meet the cmojn
alvey-
- arising in Hongkong) of an
officer of the Vice Admiralty Court not becoming
officer of the Co- lonial Court of Admiralty. Such
1 72
ex-officer world be entitled
under the proviso to the amamt of the fee but would not be in a position to take the fee itself.
At the risk of repeating
a contention which I meant to pre-
last letter, I would. sent in my
respectfully but confidently urge, that I am in fact and in the
meaning of the Statute both the and "He same per officer
#AALE
1
" who but for the passing of the
Set would have been cutitled W
т
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.