CO129-294 - Governor Sir Blake - 1899 [10-12] — Page 110

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed

107

Attorney General. The result of the action was that A-Hok lost his case. Three of the jurymen held that Mr. Belilios was the principal, but the 4 decided that the Public Works Department was the principal, and that the Department had no authority to pledge Mr. Belilios's credit. With this verdict the Chief Justice, by whom the case was heard, appears to have concurred.

The verdict having decided that no contract had existed between A-Hok and Mr. Belilios, there were two alternatives left: either A-Hok must go unpaid, or he must be paid by the Government. Whether or not the Government might refund itself by successfully claiming the amount from Mr. Belilios, was another question.

By this time A-Hok's position was more unfortunate than ever, because having lost his case he was saddled with the costs of both sides, which costs were taxed at $9,351.70.

The next step was taken by A-Hok on February 9th, 1899, who through his solicitor (the Crown Solicitor had now ceased to act for A-Hok) threatened to sue the Government for the sum of $11,200 plus the taxed legal expenses of the suit. The Acting Attorney General was asked to write a minute on the subject, and he gave it as his opinion that the Government could only escape the liability for the sum of $11,200 by the possibility of another jury differing from the jury whose verdict was given in the case A-Hok V. Belilios.

He gave reasons, however, for believing that such a possibility was remote. It was also his opinion that the

Edit History

2026-05-31 08:58:25 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

& 107 Attorney General. The result of the action was that A-Hok lost his case. Three of the jurymen held that Mr. Belilios was the principal, but the 4 decided that the Public Works Department was the principal, and that the Department had no authority to pledge Mr. Belilios's credit. With this verdict the Chief Justice, by whom the case was heard, appears to have concurred. The verdict having decided that no contract had existed between A-Hok and Mr. Belilios, there were two alternatives left: either A-Hok must go unpaid, or he must be paid by the Government. Whether or not the Government might refund itself by successfully claiming the amount from Mr. Belilios, was another question. By this time A-Hok's position was more unfortunate than ever, because having lost his case he was saddled with the costs of both sides, which costs were taxed at $9,351.70. The next step was taken by A-Hok on February 9th, 1899, who through his solicitor (the Crown Solicitor had now ceased to act for A-Hok) threatened to sue the Government for the sum of $11,200 plus the taxed legal expenses of the suit. The Acting Attorney General was asked to write a minute on the subject, and he gave it as his opinion that the Government could only escape the liability for the sum of $11,200 by the possibility of another jury differing from the jury whose verdict was given in the case A-Hok V. Belilios. He gave reasons, however, for believing that such a possibility was remote. It was also his opinion that the

Baseline (Original)

& 107 Attorney General. The result of the action was that A-Hok lost his case. Three of the jurymen held that Mr. Belilios was the principal, but the 4 decided that the Public Works Department was the principal, and that the Department had no authority to pledge Mr. Belilios's credit. With this verdict the Chief Justice, by whom the case was heard, appears to have concurred, The verdict having decided that no contract had existed between A-Hok and Mr. Belilios, there were two alternatives left: either A-Hok must go unpaid, or he must be paid by the Government. Whether or not the Government might refund itself by successfully claim- ing the amount from Mr. Belilios, was another question. By this time A-Hok's position was more unfortunate than ever, because having lost his case he was saddled with the costs of both sides, which costs were taxed at $9,351.70.. The next step was taken by A-Hok on February 9th. 1899, who through his solicitory(the Crown Solici- tor had now ceased to act for A-Hok) threatened to sue the Government for the sum of $11,200 plus thè taxed legal expenses of the suit. The Acting Attorney General was asked to write a minute on the subject, and he gave it as his opinion that the Government could only escape the liability for the sum of $11,200 by the possibility of another jury differing from the jury whose verdict was given in the case A-Hok V. Belilios. He gave reasons, however, for believing that such a possibility was remote. It was also his opinion that the

2026-05-31 08:58:25 · Baseline

View content

107

Attorney General. The result of the action was that

A-Hok lost his case. Three of the jurymen held that

Mr. Belilios was the principal, but the 4 decided that

the Public Works Department was the principal, and

that the Department had no authority to pledge Mr.

Belilios's credit. With this verdict the Chief Justice,

by whom the case was heard, appears to have concurred,

The verdict having decided that no contract

had existed between A-Hok and Mr. Belilios, there were

two alternatives left: either A-Hok must go unpaid, or

he must be paid by the Government. Whether or not the

Government might refund itself by successfully claim-

ing the amount from Mr. Belilios, was another question.

By this time A-Hok's position was more unfortunate

than ever, because having lost his case he was saddled

with the costs of both sides, which costs were taxed

at $9,351.70..

The next step was taken by A-Hok on February

9th. 1899, who through his solicitory(the Crown Solici-

tor had now ceased to act for A-Hok) threatened to sue

the Government for the sum of $11,200 plus thè taxed

legal expenses of the suit. The Acting Attorney General

was asked to write a minute on the subject, and he

gave it as his opinion that the Government could only

escape the liability for the sum of $11,200 by the

possibility of another jury differing from the jury

whose verdict was given in the case A-Hok V. Belilios.

He gave reasons, however, for believing that such a

possibility was remote. It was also his opinion that

the

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.