CO129-353 - Public Offices - 1908 — Page 582

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed

578

vis-à-vis the Chinese Authorities in Canton was a matter on

which the Chief Justice of Hongkong, in his judicial

capacity, competent to decide, that I ventured with extreme

reluctance, fully realising the responsibility I was taking,

to differ with so eminent an authority as Sir Francis Piggott.

As I informed Your Excellency in my last despatch, I

have submitted my action for the consideration of His Majesty's Minister in Peking and under those circumstances I

cannot, even if I wished, continue to discuss this question

with His Honour the Chief Justice.

On one point in His Honour's letter of October 20th,

I will, with Your Excellency's permission, offer an explanation.

I refer to my omission to reply to the Chief Justice's

reference to the case of Watson v. the Tung Kwong Co.

My reasons are, briefly, as follows:-

When the Chief Justice in his memorandum of October

22nd mentioned this case as a precedent for the Attorney-General requesting the Namhoi Magistrate to serve a writ of

summons on a Chinese defendant in Canton, I caused a careful

search to be made in the Chinese archives for a record

of

Edit History

2026-06-07 07:56:05 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
578 vis-à-vis the Chinese Authorities in Canton was a matter on which the Chief Justice of Hongkong, in his judicial capacity, competent to decide, that I ventured with extreme reluctance, fully realising the responsibility I was taking, to differ with so eminent an authority as Sir Francis Piggott. As I informed Your Excellency in my last despatch, I have submitted my action for the consideration of His Majesty's Minister in Peking and under those circumstances I cannot, even if I wished, continue to discuss this question with His Honour the Chief Justice. On one point in His Honour's letter of October 20th, I will, with Your Excellency's permission, offer an explanation. I refer to my omission to reply to the Chief Justice's reference to the case of Watson v. the Tung Kwong Co. My reasons are, briefly, as follows:- When the Chief Justice in his memorandum of October 22nd mentioned this case as a precedent for the Attorney-General requesting the Namhoi Magistrate to serve a writ of summons on a Chinese defendant in Canton, I caused a careful search to be made in the Chinese archives for a record of
Baseline (Original)
!! X 578 vis-à-vis the hinese Authorities in Senton was a mitter on which the Chief Justico of Honkongas, in his judicial capacity, competent to decido, that I ventured with extrane reluctance, fully realising the responsibility I was taking, to differ with so ominent an authority na Sir Francio Pâgyott. As I informed Your Stalloney in my last degubch, I have mibmitted my cation for the consideration of His laj- eaty'a Minister in Poking and under those circumstances I cannot, even if I wished, contínio to discuss this postion with His Honour the Chief Justico. On one point in His Honour'a letter of Cotobar Weidi. I will, with Your colluncy's permission, offer an explan- stion. I refer to my omission to reply to the hief Justiço'n reforence to the case of Wateon v. the Tuon Kwong: fist. reasone are, briefly, ne followe:- When the Chief Justico in his moranda of Testuabur 22nd. mentioned this case as a precodent for this formulato- Doneral requesting the Nanhoi Magistrate to serve a writ of nurmons on a Chinese defendant in Canton, I qused a curofil search to be made in the Chineso archivos for a record of
2026-06-07 07:56:05 · Baseline
View content

!!

X

578

vis-à-vis the hinese Authorities in Senton was a mitter on

which the Chief Justico of Honkongas, in his judicial

capacity, competent to decido, that I ventured with extrane

reluctance, fully realising the responsibility I was taking,

to differ with so ominent an authority na Sir Francio Pâgyott.

As I informed Your Stalloney in my last degubch, I

have mibmitted my cation for the consideration of His laj-

eaty'a Minister in Poking and under those circumstances I

cannot, even if I wished, contínio to discuss this postion

with His Honour the Chief Justico.

On one point in His Honour'a letter of Cotobar Weidi.

I will, with Your colluncy's permission, offer an explan-

stion. I refer to my omission to reply to the hief Justiço'n

reforence to the case of Wateon v. the Tuon Kwong: fist.

reasone are, briefly, ne followe:-

When the Chief Justico in his moranda of Testuabur

22nd. mentioned this case as a precodent for this formulato-

Doneral requesting the Nanhoi Magistrate to serve a writ of

nurmons on a Chinese defendant in Canton, I qused a curofil

search to be made in the Chineso archivos for a record

of

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.