CO129-313 - Governor Sir Blake - 1902 [10-12] — Page 177

Officers

accounting to the Treasures

for

her is (rightly,)

fers varid by the think Jou tell. I claubt

I doubt whether

5

means

yes g.SR.

should have been quilted; if it wasere Jaques, wa

it is presumably still necessary, I suffer items 11 and 12

the funfere, of 2.3 of 2. 962 of Ord 4/5 of 1901 Code of Cuil Procedure).

Cover

Mrs. Johnom

hur Cox

It was

A.F. 25/11

carters to omit to repeat 5 of 1902

[

hut

it is, of course, imploidly reprated by this orde so far as it is inconsistent therewith. Repeal by implication. alwage Mjectionable and ropscially so when ass orde purports by its title to repeal expressly

Poeding Ms box

8.S.R. 26/11

me

the

S.5 of Ordce 5 of 1902 e rely legalises fees hitherto charged & though bodce. 8, 1905 is implicitly repeated by present Ordce the operation 3.5 of the former Ordce has already had its desired effect & therefore, in view of 010 (2) of

I think, Oráce, 24, of 'ay, there was necessity

to reenact s 5 of 1902. in the preunt Ordce.

mo

? sanction Ordce pointing out that at wd have been more regular if Ordce 5 of 1902 had been explicitly repealed.

ས

I ask why the forede part of 2. 3 f

selating to part to land officer this accounting Ordce. 5 of 1902 (was not re-enactect

on

Ly

Mr. Johnson is right clause is required that there has been us

it was passed).

175

to 580 5 of 5 of 1902. No fouch bezelization

the repeat of that orde (assuming, of course,

inreguler bag mands of free since

proposed 2.P.R. 0/12

? Proceed

A fonce

as

A B C

2 Dec