!
:
:
Privy Council never over-rule findings on questi 3
of fact.
(b). That the Chief Justice had stated
that he would not have juries when he could help it
and disbelieved in them. Mr. Hewett pointed out that
on an application for a Jury a "Special Jury" would be
appointed, and he submitted the view that a Special
Jury in Hongkong would consist of very able and
intelligent men drawn from the Merchant class who
owing to the inter-relation of all business interests
in so small a Colony possessed to a very unusual
degree a general knowledge of business affairs out-
-side the particular branch in which each individual
was engaged. Such a knowledge was not, and could not
be possessed by the Chief Justice, however, able. He
informed me that the consecutive refusals of the
Chief Justice to grant a Jury in the cases cited in
his Memorandum had caused such a feeling of alarm and
distrust in the Mercantile Community that it was
within his knowledge that one prominent Kerchant had
instructed his Solicitors to compromise any case and
so avoid submitting the issue to the Supreme Court.
(c). I had gathered the impression
from his conversation that the alteration in the law
was primarily desired because of the attitude taken
by the present Chief Justice, and the lack of
confidence which he represented to me was felt in him.
I therefore pointed out that in my opinion it was a
serious matter to alter the law in order to deal with
a temporary inconvenience, and I asked him (1) whether
apart from the situation produced by the individu-l
idiosyncracies of Sir F. Figgott he was of opinion
that the change in the law would be of permanent
utility
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.