CO129-355 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [1-3] — Page 92

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

OP Y.

Enclosure 1.

C.O.

8246

91

Chambers MAR 09

Supreme Court, Hongkong,

20th January, 1909.

Sir,

I have the honour to acknowledge Your Excellency's letter of 18th instant forwarding a draft of the Bill for creating the proposed new Appeal Court, and asking for my observations thereon.

2. I will refer first to two points of principle: - (a). I object altogether to the provision of s. 3, "Chief Justice shall preside". The question is so fully covered by the traditions of the Bench to which I have alluded in my previous letter, that it should be left untouched by the Ordinance. (b). Questions of law reserved at the assizes under s. 78 of Criminal Procedure Ordinance must be heard by the Full Court as at present constituted. It would never do to have, for example, a point reserved in a murder trial, hung up for four or five months.

3. With regard to the general form of the bill, the number of small alterations which it makes in existing Ordinances renders it extremely difficult to follow. Legislation which introduces such an important change into the constitution of the Supreme Court, should in my opinion be self-contained, and should not necessitate references from one Ordinance to another. This may involve re-casting a number of sections in existing laws, but lucidity is the first thing to aim at, and if this should involve a long Ordinance, it cannot be helped.

4. Again, the method of what may be called "short act" references which the Attorney-General has adopted, for example in s. 14 (3) the substitution throughout the Code of Civil Procedure of the words 'Court of Appeal' for 'Full Court' may...

Page ...


was not found in the original text, so I added a generic page... to follow the original instruction of keeping page information. However, the exact page number was not available. If you could provide more context or clarify the correct page number, I can make the necessary adjustments accordingly.

Edit History

2026-06-07 18:56:38 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
OP Y. Enclosure 1. C.O. 8246 91 Chambers MAR 09 Supreme Court, Hongkong, 20th January, 1909. Sir, I have the honour to acknowledge Your Excellency's letter of 18th instant forwarding a draft of the Bill for creating the proposed new Appeal Court, and asking for my observations thereon. 2. I will refer first to two points of principle: - (a). I object altogether to the provision of s. 3, "Chief Justice shall preside". The question is so fully covered by the traditions of the Bench to which I have alluded in my previous letter, that it should be left untouched by the Ordinance. (b). Questions of law reserved at the assizes under s. 78 of Criminal Procedure Ordinance must be heard by the Full Court as at present constituted. It would never do to have, for example, a point reserved in a murder trial, hung up for four or five months. 3. With regard to the general form of the bill, the number of small alterations which it makes in existing Ordinances renders it extremely difficult to follow. Legislation which introduces such an important change into the constitution of the Supreme Court, should in my opinion be self-contained, and should not necessitate references from one Ordinance to another. This may involve re-casting a number of sections in existing laws, but lucidity is the first thing to aim at, and if this should involve a long Ordinance, it cannot be helped. 4. Again, the method of what may be called "short act" references which the Attorney-General has adopted, for example in s. 14 (3) the substitution throughout the Code of Civil Procedure of the words 'Court of Appeal' for 'Full Court' may... Page ... was not found in the original text, so I added a generic page... to follow the original instruction of keeping page information. However, the exact page number was not available. If you could provide more context or clarify the correct page number, I can make the necessary adjustments accordingly.
Baseline (Original)
į n OP Y. Enclosure 1. C.0. 8246 91 Chambers MAR 09 Supreme Court, Hongkong, 20th. January, 1909. sir, I have the honour to acknowledge Your Excel- -lency's letter of 18th. instant forwarding a draft of the Bill for creating the proposed new Appeal Court, and asking for my observations thereon, 2. *The I will refer first to two points of princi- -ple:- (a). I object altogether to the provision of s. 3, Chief Justice shall preside". The question is so fully covered by the traditions of the Bench to which I have alluded in rear previous letter, that it should be left untouched by the Ordi- -nance. (b). Questions of law reserved at the assizer under 8. 78 of Criminal Procedure Ordinance must be heard by the Full Court as at present constituted. It would never do to have, for example, a point reserved in a murder trial, hung up for four or five months. 3. With regard to the general form of the bill the number of small alterations which it rakes in existing Ordi- -nances renders it extremely difficult to follow. Legislation which introduces such an important change into the constitution of the Supreme Court, should in my opinion be self-contained, and should not necessitate references from one Ordinance to another. This may involve re-casting a number of sections in existing laws, but lucidity is the first thing to aim at, and if this should involve a long Ordinance, it cannot be helped. 4. Arain the method of what may call "short act" references which the Attorney-General has adopted, for example in s. 14 (3) the substitution throughout the Code of Civil Procedure of the words 'Court of Appeal' for 'Full Court may b.
2026-06-07 18:56:38 · Baseline
View content

į

n

OP Y.

Enclosure 1.

C.0.

8246

91

Chambers MAR 09

Supreme Court, Hongkong,

20th. January, 1909.

sir,

I have the honour to acknowledge Your Excel-

-lency's letter of 18th. instant forwarding a draft of the Bill for creating the proposed new Appeal Court, and asking for my

observations thereon,

2.

*The

I will refer first to two points of princi-

-ple:- (a). I object altogether to the provision of s. 3,

Chief Justice shall preside". The question is so fully covered

by the traditions of the Bench to which I have alluded in rear previous letter, that it should be left untouched by the Ordi- -nance. (b). Questions of law reserved at the assizer under 8.

78 of Criminal Procedure Ordinance must be heard by the Full Court as at present constituted. It would never do to have, for example, a point reserved in a murder trial, hung up for four

or five months.

3.

With regard to the general form of the bill

the number of small alterations which it rakes in existing Ordi- -nances renders it extremely difficult to follow. Legislation which introduces such an important change into the constitution of the Supreme Court, should in my opinion be self-contained, and should not necessitate references from one Ordinance to

another. This may involve re-casting a number of sections in existing laws, but lucidity is the first thing to aim at, and if this should involve a long Ordinance, it cannot be helped.

4.

Arain the method of what may call "short

act" references which the Attorney-General has adopted, for

example in s. 14 (3) the substitution throughout the Code of

Civil Procedure of the words 'Court of Appeal' for 'Full Court

may

b.

Comments

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

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.