Page 368
of the writ, and therefore the 'usual course' involves the exercise of jurisdiction over absent Chinese, as over any other absent foreigner.
So far as executing judgments of the Hongkong Court in China is concerned, that has formed the subject of a separate correspondence.
So far as serving writs of summons is concerned, I see no reason why we should not assist the Chinese Courts in serving writs on their own subjects in Hongkong. We hand over their subjects to be beheaded. The Chinese Courts do not profess to exercise civil jurisdiction against Europeans.
The practice of serving notice of writs by Solicitors in foreign countries has the sanction of English Law, that being involved in the practice of service out of the jurisdiction. The only limitation, speaking broadly, is that the law of the foreign country must not be infringed.
come under one head, what is the proper interpretation of Article 29 of the Order in Council.
I quite agree that as the Order in Council only extends to British subjects, Article 29 in so far as it relates to the exercise of any act of authority or jurisdiction - such as the service of a writ - is similarly limited.
I agree that Mr. Mansfield's action in serving
b
bna noltonsa end berluper Jasupeñ to atestad erit Jant
.gnoxynoH to toanavoð eɗt to Lavor{Q#
betalxe Juebosong a dart two gaitukoq um nó
ditw baliquos bar,Larensd-Luenoð nedw,blaktana" .1M dołɗw at
f.
Taluano) and to Teamisi yaisieve vɗ tɛoupeЯ to aradded “afimis
beliqer xoT
TM*,*IdatanoJ
.Talimetri asw notcom e'bisitanali „T'{ JarJ
368
of the writ, and therefore the 'usual course' involves
the exercise of jurisdiction over absent Chinese, as over
any other absent foreigner.
So far as executing judgments of the Hongkong Court in
China is concerned, that has formed the subject of a
separate correspondence,
wal to anotdaeup era asnioq saeɗs to yus M
.F
add to ariat İstanes art to waly at duể .eevorih Jonnsa. I dołdw
brawbT 112 darið blæɛ at 21 foidw nt rajzol a'¬aðalniỵ dalsi~8
, Larensp- Ivanoɔ gaizɔå adź to nolinatnoo sið khíodqu vərd ‚k diskw VIĹas Jon amob it davodd doldw
+
onia bra - dotaqueb a'von? brawb” “¿8 to arist Iautoa siit nď
(al visset avant at takoq edit daw yakźsolbak to welv a d‡łw
saeris to seoa #flé no al wel erit dariw yltainď stata Ilada I
So far as serving writs of summons is concerned, I see no
•
reason why we should not assist the Chinese Courts in
serving writs on their own subjects in Hongkong. We hand
over their subjects to be beheaded. The Chinese Courts do
not profess to exercise civil jurisdiction against
Europeans.
The practice of serving notice of writs by Solicitors in
foreign countries has the sanction of English Law, that
being involved in the practice of service out of the
jurisdiction. The only limitation, speaking broadly, is
.statoq
adid‚miat JOSTTOO STOM add mail of to moltolbal¬ul sdt
.d
Jneada revo grodynolf to duod amorque edit to sonstaquoo .8.b
2.1.1.
tero etoterant bna,enelis to atostɗva „aðnæbrotob
and distw ob of rovataite yakiton nad (asosidua euenidə
.ejoaldue two viedt navo attuod saenidð sɗt to moltoibatut
.Jпe¬¬#9409 si nottotbairt eft
solvisa tuontiw bentatdo ed tonnas Jíustob yd taembut A
to
al
that the law of the foreign country must not be infringed.
come under one head, what is the proper interpreta-
-tion of Article 29 of the Order in Council.
I quite agree that as the Order in Council
only extends to British subjects, Article 29 in so far as it
relates to the exercise of any act of authority or jurisdiction
- such as the service of a writ - is similarly limited.
I agree that Mr. Mansfield's action in
serving
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.