!
the ordinance from the úgal point grew
? auction 27.
Sur Dishay hir Collies
д
8 unscasmable
JR 10/2
I think the system is ujort
xy
It is
appoined
I subunit that it is not proper
to give the former a free
hand
to deride (d/ whether to fine the
village
(A) has much. The (各
shaved, in my dicicias,
matter shamed,
the Supreme
bor dealt with bf the Sup
Corist or
доктор
at least, G
in-Concil.
tie
It can
scarcely to regarded as too trivial
a matter to drens the attention, of the Concil.
दिदा
Jagree with me stubbs. The power of fining
(by a special rati) wunder the 1888 order, which is cove replaced by Part II of this orde, was voted
in the Court in Council.
The present tendence, in I.K. seems to be substitudé
0
the Grove for Crow in Council is all mathro
regardless of thuis sulyst importamen ? We need not whost the system stacked in 1885, but Sow." on? be amended to box-m-Comari ( 251.
Acc 23/0
Scope
16/12
Lostrewe
In Part africa you
383
hade
Cataly
allowed orices parishing
For a
a tribe
village in respecto reflect to Sive assistance for the anest g criminals offor recoverystolen
property but you have insisted that
theeshmen be a magisterial in the frict of the pers
preliminary
in quing
to ascertain
whom it is
can be heard.
من
purposed collectively to punish at wh: their defence
Section 5 of this I submit absolutely in a place like Aoneking
refuse to
allow
adič
inadmissible
I wres
it. In addition to
g
the objections to the frin ople collective punishment, the des portic position in wh: the for" is folaced
provision
If the absence
дац
to the evidence afon who he is t act make the furturral indefensible.
I agree.
Ара 23/12
Collective punishment is su
importunate recarsity sometimes, but its
write a
Cormony with Hong Kong
Requires greater pustipuation when in suppleist,
in the porn proposed. If commute
be pamieter
X/I
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.