Sub-Enclosure to Enclosure 4.
Notes on the question of the Proposed Alterations in the Jury Bill.
The two lists enclosed with the letter dated 19th July, 1909, from the Chief Justice to His Excellency show that between the dates May, 1905, to May, 1909, only 17 cases have occurred where juries have been applied for, of which 13 have been granted and 4 refused.
On the face of it, it might appear therefore that there does not seem to be any very strong argument in favour of the alteration asked for by the Committee of the Chamber of Commerce.
A more careful consideration of the facts will, however, I consider demonstrate that such an impression, if conveyed by the Chief Justice's list, would be erroneous.
It will be noticed that the period covered by the Chief Justice's list is four years. In the first list the dates of the order of the actions are given, which run from 27th March, 1906, to 20th April, 1909, or a period of three years and one month.
No dates are given against the four cases in which a jury was refused but as a matter of fact one of these cases was heard in March, 1908, and the other three in August of the same year.
The second list, however, appears to be incomplete. Action No. 219 of 1907 heard in August, 1908, (Chu Tak Sang against the China Navigation Co., Ld., and Messrs. Butterfield and Swire) was originally entered by the Plaintiffs for hearing in the Original Jurisdiction and upon this an application was made by the defendants for a special jury; the counter-blast to this on the part of the Plaintiffs was to apply for the case to be transferred to the Admiralty Jurisdiction.
The writ should perhaps have been more properly applied for in the first instance in the Admiralty Jurisdiction, the case being one of salvage, but it appears to me that rightly speaking this case should have appeared in the
༢ ༩
stunofor
Iritment"
PORI
SHURIA INA
7 Motiv eurbrenomea a enofone I
rozrite nierged "ee"
mod win egit to seastu.00 ade to eadem infti*k end of hevdiraluG qo te noluntoalb 5.7 starting? od tebro ni soterrol to
„[IK) vut, edt at mølteredis kagogerg aft no vabiozaex "altern
* revo soot or wil alb vanaf fanyl al
.gooratta aðild en molese enoted
20 HTA : Interey yorts dat han blow 1
BZ FNIJ SATNA NA BA on yi nee smeri notneskorg Lamaf ede
dr & mem! ed for binola at!
ultra arap hice me den edo dały ob of sahtevna bad »valt va
wife of whey Bettsveca niz no% wifidłano pa o dqsoos I
Z (bp)
.rubishoPTAIT
Sub-Enclosure to Enclosure 4.
Notes on the question of the Proposed Alterations in the Jur 380
Bill.
The two lists enclosed with the letter
dated 19th. July, 1909, from the Chief Justice to His Excellency
show that between the dates May, 1905, to May, 1909, only 17
cases have occurred where juries have been applied for, of
which 13 have been granted and 4 refused.
On the face of it, it might appear there-
-fore that there does not seem to be any very strong argument
in favour of the alteration asked for by the Committee of the
Chamber of Commerce.
A more careful consideration of the facts
will, however, I consider demonstrate that such an impression,
if conveyed by the Chief Justice's list, would be erroneous.
It will be noticed that the period covered
by the Chief Justice's list is four years. In the first list the
dates of the order of the actions are given, which run from 27th.
March, 1906, to 20th. April, 1909, or a period of three years
and one month.
No dates are given against the four cases in
which a jury was refused but as a matter of fact one of these
cases was heard in March, 1908, and the other three in August of
the same year.
The second list, however, appears to be
incomplete. Action No. 219 of 1907 heard in August, 1908,
(Chu Tak Sang against the China Navigation Co., Ld., and
Messrs. Butterfield and Swire) was originally entered by the
Plaintiffs for hearing in the Original Jurisdiction and upon
this an application was made by the defendants for a special
jury the counter blast to this on the part of the Plaintiffs
was to apply for the case to be transferred to the Admiralty
Jurisdiction.
•
The writ should perhaps have been more
properly applied for in the first instance in the Admiralty
Jurisdiction, the case being one of salvage, but it appears to
me that rightly speaking this case should have appeared in the
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.