(Colonial Office. 2.
656
the men to proceed, but as they still persisted in their refusal sentenced them to two weeks hard labour.
The arrangement was that if the ship came back to Hong Kong they should, at the expiration of the imprisonment, be taken back on board the vessel and return with her to England. As a matter of fact the vessel did not touch again at Hong Kong but after a round voyage ultimately returned to the United Kingdom without touching at Hong Kong again.
Several points were put forward on behalf of the Defendants, the owners, in answer to the men's claim but we need only trouble you with one which was that the question whether the men were compellable to go on or not had been already decided before the proper Tribunal at Hong Kong, and that the plaintiffs' proper procedure would have been to appeal from that decision which they had not done and that therefore they were estopped from taking these proceedings. The Judge decided against the owners' contention and in favour of the men on this point.
It has occurred to us that the Lords Justices may like to have some information as to the exact constitution of the Tribunal at Hong Kong and we shall be glad if you will be good enough to tell us under what Act the magistrate's powers come into existence and what his powers are, and if there are any special Rules and Regulations or Ordinances on the point we shall be further obliged if you will be good enough to supply us with a copy.
The magistrate in question and who made the necessary entries
'
(
Colonial Office. 2.
656
the men to proceed, but as they still persisted in their refusal sentenced them to lo wesks hard labour.
The arrangement was that if the ship came back to Hong Kong they should, at the expiration of the imprisonment, be aken back on board the vessel and return with her to magland. As a matter of fact the vessel did not touch again at Hong Kong but after a round voyage ultima tely returned to the mited Kingdom without touching at Hong Kong again.
Several points were put forward on behalf of the Defendante, the owners, in answer to the mens claim but we need only trouble you with one which was that the question whether the men were
compellable to go on or not had been already decided before the
proper Tribunal at Hong Kong, and that the plaintiffs proper
procedure would have been to appeal from that decision which they had not done and that therefore they were estopped fem
taking these proceedings. The Judge decided against the owners
contenti on and in favour of the men on this point.
It has occurred to us that the Lords Justices may like to
have some information as to the exact constitution of the Tribunal
at Hong Kong and we shall be glad if you will be good enough to
tell us under what Act the magistrate's powers come into existence
and what his powers are, and if there are any special Rules and
Regulations or Ordinances on the point we shall be further
obliged if you will be good enough to supply us with a copy.
The ragistrate in question and who made the necessary antries
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.