CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9] — Page 395

F

t

333

20 the DAV KOHT # not neidrodigia si

anan por VÀ Bobao xin sanit or pramen de IT

.‡Cevennes Isiveqa

„EINGA JAR 72

ma del elt sattuul. Y1:10 Bnr gf betong mot erit to exile evt ot

•MC CHÍ GIISTAY MÁ .YUNG A *noted bebÝ IN - ved bforfa .b&

→inivel dansgendIn wie man øved or resa don asob vald .fite bra

I hovlarni vans Intot - „YUL. A vežbiosisiokw wild, not not/go-

000, 05€ 15 at aneso turot eeo:ly

-dano zengi sya? I ca%80 00/ BA

-*SONG Bore €

*R*DataGA 100w nolcokbatur, vblenden! ni being aned ever! vi-

Ingkete() mt hou com ***i^ B

besbaab utarbely mis terk base of mere yari nolculbain

to nst bus ticentri ad caso es rithe Ekob of solta T teir art

A new drino Thờ mg of Danente me shen vino bus atoutsenk

.net her as esv vunt Isioega

sees bronus erit

to wobble; barth ohm HS DE NOVO to win entef & quivlovat

A net bred title.li a sidemakdaen, is al bue Just

3 BON'T 163, AL BUN

AY), Act acolteuli „A UNOSIR ME & fpermaneg að (Doitavt -solljus hian men da beremol to tenths. 1 sull,nhac visetupent doz attuale da z at Ysa oh rv zary and PURE VIJESjent enw anol?-

be not matteolla ere,hovkonti adnet dasdrogrid ena storit beanetɗo ilgwollt wire hanno to telean a en howolle et birorta

.bauit. d 0. dor bite,ente tecido mvis vi os

kot mi)

-ndresd on net par da

Loud at beautem cond wwwt (ansos

rattasip aide to

•at hebigen TRUL ved 3 1-6 edgermutte¶

I .0303 ni yeh I pi

-Ah oftacio saltau, tohib ale vd heroup asaza siz robinLOD abio pra sad cult to molten vis ne not woð khanoer að

vutog

point I will deal with later on.

Paragraph 6. It is very satisfactory to

have an assurance from the Chief Justice "that personally he is

not at all unfavourable to juries", as hitherto the Chief

Justice has made no secret of the views he held (but has now

apparently abandoned) that he did not approve of a Jury and lie

has stated this on more than one occasion.

If any further argument were required to ser

show the necessity for a change in the existing ordinances it is

found in the concluding lines of the Chief Justice's letter.

"In the first case on the list, a partner-

-ship issue, I intimated that I thought there should be a Jury

to try such issues; but this was strongly objected to by one of

the Counsel engaged".

Here we have the Chief Justice in agreement

with us,

that a Jury should be granted, and yet he so reads the

Ordinances that he seems to consider he is bound to refuse a

Jury whenever objected to by one side or the other.

Up till the Spring of 1908 a jury has very

rarely been refused, but now a new construction appears to have

been placed upon the law and in spite of his better judgment,

the Chief Justice seems to consider he is compelled to refuse a

Jury if pressed to do so.

I believe the Pulsne Judge supports the

Chief Justice in his opposition to our suggestion to revert to

the old practice which obtained prior to 1901, on the grounds,

so I am given to understand, that we should follow the home

practice, but this I consider is inapplicable to this Colony

and that the cases quoted have clearly demonstrated this.

At home application for a jury is heard by

one Judge, the case subsequently coming before another. While there is further full arrangement made for appeals. I understand

a case is rarely heard by the same Judge who may have refused a

Jury.

بار

In Hongkong the application for a jury is

made