:
134
-perty shall be respected, that is only a bargain which can be en- forced by Sovereign against Sovereign in the ordinary course of diplomatic pressure".
18.
I venture to think that principle out to be held to apply as regards the Convention. If the Emperor of China considers the terms of the Convention as to "Expropriation" have not been observed, it is open to him to make diplomatic representations on the subject Her Majesty's Government, but it seems remarkable that the Court should decide what Her Majesty can or cannot do, under that Convention."
Moreover, while the Convention stipulates that Great Britain shall have "sole jurisdiction" during the 99 years, the Chief Justice at (5) says "the Crown has only a limited or qualified Sovereignty in the leased District". In fact the Jonven- tion amounts to a cassion of the territory for 99 years, and the term Lease is used to show it is not in perpetuity, and during the 99 years Her Majesty is to have "sole jurisdiction".
I am afraid the Judgment may tempt the Chinese or their astute legal advisers to set up a good many ingenious claims to all sorts of supposed rights under Chinese Law or supposed Chinese Law. Enough of these will come before the new Land Court in
any case."
17.
But what is to be done ? There is no Appeal from the Chief Justice's decision in this Colony. And the Crown was no party to the Sait..
To appeal to the Privy Council the "Sum or Matter at issue", must be over £500 (Sterling) in amount or value, or must involve directly or indirectly the Title to property or to some civil right exceeding £500 in value, and the Appeal must be by a party to the Suit. In this Suit the claim was for $100 and Wr. Sercombe Smith thought the Plaintiffs entitled to $10 damages, but I am inclined to think that the title of the Crown to property exceeding $500 is indirectly involved. Moreover, the Plaintiffs in the Suit made the admission which is set out in the Judgment. 18.
On the whole, therefore, I see no likelihood of inducing the Chief Justice to change his opinion which I have ven- tured to criticize, and the arguments which could be used have ap- parently been used already without effect. 19.
!
The Plaintiffs who acted throughout on their own responsibility, in no way asked for the assistance of the Crown and neither they nor the Court gave any notice to the Crown of the nature of the Answer of the proceedings. I should rather bave ex- pected from the language of Lord Watson in Ogston v. Stewart L. R.: (1998) Appeal Cases, at p. 127, that this would have been done. He says there "The Court ought to have directed intimation to be made to the Crown Authorities so as to give them an opportunity of ap- pealing or of bringing a separate action", proceedings being stayed in the meantime.
I hear this morning, the Plaintiffs' Solicitor is
likely
d
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.