551
*ARI JAGU2 02
to dapat quia sunt kerneng rad 31 I
B. licnuco naj
+
J
1 gig.5 ©JEVIN, *
•
JA Semed 2013
-JICIE JU
Je*
* Penseil på frukt tek k
TEACĂ de Kingon vad end A
11
2!13
JO
...
I
¡
A JI
Je tu d
* Qaswcicingas no ti-
?
hurnų JuoiJIA Jurvroe
iktub.na mol acitor ar
vi to tampa tid to da: v792
}
1401 40 L
Je vi *
erite TMEL
.(*)
ÇİN 1 JALIn hea oloraçosan z draj
Ἄ ་;
MICRA 50 BAYOTGAN QELA) to T JA
Ό
t
AT JOE MAL Tie Juel LAJ
I
"
-
ALUM
་;་;
and DE SATTELIS
"
Copa Jedd
.CIV742
JJATI an dus darc% of (raciA DI JI
Meade and
non tive io «ei (118.* nad gonads, echemin
In ungiand the general rule
to which it is not necessary to discuss here
books are not evidence.
Criminal trial
-
-
Ak
the exceptions
is that account
In Hongkong the rule is the same on
but in Civil matters an important exception has
been introduced by the Evidence Ordinance (2 of 1879) Sec. 28(1)
as follows:-
In Civil Proceedings ·
Entries in books of account kept in the
course of business, with such a reasonable degree of regularity
as may be satisfactory to the Court, shall be admissible in
evidence, whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court
has to enquire, but shall not alone be sufficient evidence to
charge any person with liability.
It has no doubt been considered by the
Legislature that with the Chinese in whom the commercial faculty
is very highly developed books of account kept in the conduct of
a business ought to be admissible, for what they are worth, as
evidence in a Court of Law.
In my opinion Judge would have held the
books of the Fax Un firm to be properly kept and would have
allowed them to be put in by an employer in defending against
his servant an action for wrongful dismissal.
If a master right produce these books to the
Court in justification of the act of dismissal it is hard to see
why he should not be entitled to act on the evidence of the same
books in considering whether he should proceed to dismissal in
the first instance.
Nor if a private employer may use such books
as evidence against a servant I see why the Council which has
the interests of the public to safeguard should not consider
them in dealing with a Public Officer.
{
551
*ARI JAGU2 02
to dapat quia suntkerneng rad 31 I
B. licnuco naj
+
J
1 gig.5 ©JEVIN, *
•
JA Semed 2013
-JICIE JU
Je*
* Penseil på frukt tek k
TEACĂ de Kingon vad end A
11
2!13
JO
...
I
¡
A JI
Je tu d
* Qaswcicingas no ti-
?
hurnų JuoiJIA Jurvroe
iktub.na mol acitor ar
vi to tampa tid to da: v792
}
1401 40 L
Je vi *
erite TMEL
.(*)
ÇİN 1 JALIn hea oloraçosan z draj
༈ ་
MICRA 50 BAYOTGAN QELA) to T JA
སྭ
t
AT JOE MAL Tie Juel LAJ
I
"
-
ALUM
་་
and DE SATTELIS
"
Copa Jedd
.CIV742
JJATI an dus darc% of (raciA DI JI
Meade and
non tive io «ei (118.* nad gonads, echemin
In ungiand the general rule
to which it is not necessary to discuss here
books are not evidence.
Criminal trial
-
-
Ak
the exceptions
is that account
In Hongkong the rule is the same on
but in Civil matters an important exception has
been introduced by the evidence Ordinance (2 of 1999) Sec. 28(1)
as follows:-
In Civil Proceelings ·
Entries in books of account kept in the
course of business, with such a reasonable degree of regularity
as may be satisfactory to the Court, shall be admissible in
evilence, whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court
has to enquire, but shall not alone be sufficient evidence to
charge any person with liability.
It has no doubt been considerel by the
Legislature that with the Chinese in whom the commercial faculty
is very highly developed books of account xept in the conduct of
a business ought to be admissible, for what they are worth, as
evidence in a Court of Law.
In my opinion Judge would have held the
books of the Fax Un firm to be properly kept and would have
allowed them to be put in by an employer in defending against
his servant an action for wrongful dismissal.
If a master right produce these books to the
Court in justification of the act of dismissal it is hard to see
why he should not be entitled to act on the evidence of the sare
books in considering whether he shoull proceed to dismissal in
the first instance.
Nor if a private employer ay use such books
as evidence against a servant lo i see why the Council which has
the interests of the public to safeguard should not consider
them in dealing with a Public Officer.
{
I
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.