CO129-355 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [1-3] — Page 363

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

NOTE SENT TO SIR EDWARD DAVIDSON.

360

Service of Notice of Hong Kong Writ on the Chinaman in China.

wrong.

(1 J1

Sir F. Piggott was partly right and partly wrong. He was right in so far as his action was based on the idea that, independently of any Treaty, the Supreme Court of Hong Kong can by the proper means obtain the service of notice of a writ issued by it upon a foreigner in a foreign country, but he was wrong as to the proper means by which this end can be attained in the case of a Chinese subject commorant in China, i.e., he was wrong in thinking that one of H.B.M's Courts established under the China and Corea Order 1904 could be requested, or if requested could consent, to serve such notice under Article 29 of that Order.

On this point, I think F.O. and C.O. (and everybody else bar Piggott) are agreed. See F.O. letter of 21st December 1908, and C.O. letter of 6th January 1909.

In paragraph 3 of his last letter, 10th March, Piggott now contends that Article 29 of the Order in Council, in addition to enabling H.B.M's Court to serve a British subject in China with notice of a Hong Kong writ, enables such a Court to use its good offices in the case of other defendants. I find nothing in Article 29 enabling the Court to usurp diplomatic

Edit History

2026-06-07 22:58:50 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

NOTE SENT TO SIR EDWARD DAVIDSON. 360 Service of Notice of Hong Kong Writ on the Chinaman in China. wrong. (1 J1 Sir F. Piggott was partly right and partly wrong. He was right in so far as his action was based on the idea that, independently of any Treaty, the Supreme Court of Hong Kong can by the proper means obtain the service of notice of a writ issued by it upon a foreigner in a foreign country, but he was wrong as to the proper means by which this end can be attained in the case of a Chinese subject commorant in China, i.e., he was wrong in thinking that one of H.B.M's Courts established under the China and Corea Order 1904 could be requested, or if requested could consent, to serve such notice under Article 29 of that Order. On this point, I think F.O. and C.O. (and everybody else bar Piggott) are agreed. See F.O. letter of 21st December 1908, and C.O. letter of 6th January 1909. In paragraph 3 of his last letter, 10th March, Piggott now contends that Article 29 of the Order in Council, in addition to enabling H.B.M's Court to serve a British subject in China with notice of a Hong Kong writ, enables such a Court to use its good offices in the case of other defendants. I find nothing in Article 29 enabling the Court to usurp diplomatic

Baseline (Original)

NOTE SENT TO SIR EDWARD DAVIDSON. 360 Service of Notice of Hong Kong Writ on the Chinaman in China. wrong. (1 J1 Sir F. Piggott was partly right and partly He was right in so far as his action was based on the idea that, independently of any Treaty, the Supreme Court of Hong Kong can by the proper means obtain the service of notice of a writ issued by it upon a foreigner in a foreign country, but he was wrong as to the proper means by which this end can be attained in the case of a Chinese subject commorant in Chine i.e., he was wrong in thinking that one of H.B.M's Courts established under the China and Corea Order 1904 could be requested, or if requested could consent, to serve such notice under Article 29 of that Order. On this point I think F.0. and C.0. (and everybody else bar Piggott) are agreed. See F.0. letter of 21st December 1908, and C.0. letter of 6th Jamiary 1909. In paragraph 3 of his last letter, 10th March, Piggott now contends that Article 29 of the Order in Council in addition to enabling H.B.M's Court to serve a British subject in China with notice of a Hong Kong writ, enables such a Court to use its good offices in the case of cther defendants. I find nothing in Article 29, enabling the Court to usurp diplomatic

2026-06-07 22:58:50 · Baseline

View content

NOTE SENT TO SIR EDWARD DAVIDSON.

360

Service of Notice of Hong Kong Writ on the Chinaman

in China.

wrong.

Sir F. Piggott was partly right and partly He was right in so far as his action was based on the idea that, independently of any Treaty, the Supreme Court of Hong Kong can by the proper means obtain the service of notice of a writ issued by it upon a foreigner in a foreign country, but he was wrong as to the proper means by which this end can be attained in the case of a Chinese subject commorant in Chine i.e., he was wrong in thinking that one of H.B.M's Courts established under the China and Corea Order 1904 could be requested, or if requested could consent, to serve such notice under Article 29 of that

Order.

On this point I think F.0. and C.0. (and everybody else bar Piggott) are agreed. See F.0. letter of 21st December 1908, and C.0. letter of 6th

Jamiary 1909.

In paragraph 3 of his last letter, 10th

March, Piggott now contends that Article 29 of the Order in Council in addition to enabling H.B.M's Court to serve a British subject in China with notice of a Hong Kong writ, enables such a Court to use its good offices in the case of cther defendants. I find

CO129-355 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [1-3] — Page 363

Edit History

Comments

Private Research Note