CO129-343 - Public Offices & Foreign Office - 1907 — Page 31

29

question by the Chinese Courts unleas we undertook to recipro-

-cate in the case of their Judgments. To give Judgment in the

absence of the Defendant is repugnant to Chinese ideas ef

justice, and in all my experience I do not remember one case

in which I have succeeded in obtaining such a Judgment in a

Chinese Court. There is also the question of costs. Ho Chinese

Judgment recognizes oosts as an iter of a Judgment deht,

justice in Chins haing (theoretically only of oourna) frea,

and I do not renarhara olain recovered through the Chinoso

Authorities in which costs incurred in connection with it in

a Aritish Court, have haon recognirod. It is aasting no ratio

wtion on the Hongkong Courta to suggest that in an undefended

anibohara sho dontor has ansoanded there night wol

counter-clain or get-off which would not be brought to the

notice of the Court by the Plaintiff.

(c). Any instruction to Consuls of such a nature would, in my

opinion, vary sortotaly limit choir sphora of usaruinea彤,

hana Aritish subject eonas up had against a chinose

I conorally, if he is within roach, sand for him and, arter

koaring his daronoe, andeavour to arrive at a settlamont.

Failing