It may be sufficient for the purpose; and I feel sure that he has gone through the Code and is satisfied that it is. But it is quite impossible for me to test this unaided. If the bill is to be brought forward in its present form, it should be submitted to a small Committee who would test every section of the Code, in order to see whether the substitution is accurate. Unless this is done difficulties now unforeseen may arise at any moment which may necessitate further legislation. If it is decided to put the Bill forward in its present shape, I will of course assist in the essential process of verification.
5. The fundamental principle of the proposal is that while the new Appeal Court is to take over certain work from the existing 'Full Court', the Full Court, in its present form is to carry on its existing jurisdiction under the name of 'Divisional Court'. In the first place I am by no means clear that s. 8 effects this object so far as the Divisional Court is concerned. It is exceedingly dangerous to re-enact legislation referring to jurisdiction, which is apparently what is intended in s. 8. This section requires the most careful scrutiny; on the face of it it seems to me incomplete.
5. Every one of the substitution sections requires to be investigated by a Committee such as I had suggested above. In the absence of such an investigation it is quite impossible for me to report whether the bill is satisfactory or not.
On the assumption that it is possible to fix the dates on which the new Appeal Court is to sit, the dates given in s. 6, 4th January and 4th July, are open to objection. So far as 4th January is concerned it is open to the objection that if, as this year, Chinese New Year falls in January, the time of sitting would be much curtailed. Even when it falls in February there is always a considerable number of small matters to be attended to, both in Original and Summary Jurisdiction, as the Chinese custom is to settle up business before their New Year. The sittings might therefore be seriously curtailed.
92
10
.9021
t
LINK A to eten @ ont.
* I
onef-
!•૫૪ ૧૦ શ
40007) Ix6 A won bRROɖong Sit enitsoro tot
-bouky to ate'og 0.3 od dankt z
IL I
wds of natreno. Is doelɗo I .(s) -taly-
I's 'a antéeut tetan
to anot-bent gilt ne
notesf wobreng
enobre ? (1) .outer.
t
* 20 #E
bakavoo Int op ad molder
I alot to g
*
be forrar un atsl að hlora *! cas
is b
SEOP
སཏྭཊྛཾ
od ob
FOTON
Got not qu
Id
-1520
+
Bor: Liro etuhanan¶ Lani 170 to R5
de as 100
.&
•
ni gets a fot lu anoizetatía Casa to termula 29-2 nõbralikul, woffot da * *Inondas Ji atenues ASORIES
} ste toyol na Komɑ ɑeruboncat dob
,boni :duon-tina ed noi iyo wa ni himoría,anuod omnes va
að nonsubi~0 are gost asonenster ndertenspan ton blwoifa bus
ui enoldoen to red men s nutrasneck national
radona
4 biex ahe at spille dankt for at falo. I did,ews! nattelze
.bus,fa
<
A hinode abit
**OWN" (C
I Jaiwe hold vi e:lt utan▲
to rbon : do urorit no?, retredus
H
(C) BI . ut siywko
Storon (UT'kot 'fas, À 70 **woo' abrow art to oruhonor¤ INTO
may be sufficient for the purpose; and I feel sure that he has
gone through the Code and is satisfied that it is. But it is
quite impossible for me to test this unaided. If the bill is to
be brought forward in its present form, it should be submitted
to a small Committee who would test every section of the Code,
in order to see whether the substitution is accurate. Unless
this is done difficulties now unforeseen may arise at any
moment which may necessitate further legislation. If it is
decided to put the Pill forward in its present shape, I will of
course assist in the essential process of verification.
5.
The fundamental principle of the proposal
is that while the new Appeal Court is to take over certain
work from the existing 'Full Court', the Full Court, in its
present form is to carry on its existing jurisdiction under the
name of 'Divisional Court'. In the first place I am by no means
clear that s. 8 effects this object so far as the Divisional
Court is concerned. It is exceedingly dangerous to re-enact
legislation referring to jurisdiction, which is apparently
what is intended in s. 8. This section requires the most
careful scrutiny; on the face of it it seems to me incomplete.
5.
Every one of the substitution sections
requires to be investigated by a Committee such as I had
su rested above. In the absence of such an investigation it is
quite impossible for me to report whether the bill is satis-
-factory or not.
>
On the assumption that it is possible to
fix the dates on which the new Appeal Court is to sit, the dates
given in s. 6, 4th. Taruary and 4th. July, are open to object-
-ion. So far as 4th. January is concerned it is open to the
objection that if, as this year, Chinese New Year falls in
January, the time of sitting would be much curtailed. Even
when it falls in February there is always a considerable number
of small matters to be attended to, both in Original and Swmary
Jurisdiction, as the Chinese custom is to settle up business
before their "ew Year. The sittings might therefore be serious-
-1-
ar.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.