CO129-375 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1911 [1-2] — Page 341

no Jaeo dilguod ed ya. es be.. „nad” ni to mozjni - ostin' saj ni eIdsyaq

? lionwoo ni 18010 ya snob ed and oivo) :yreup

NL 19DTO 9N3d n. 13anga pipone anoiaivot¶

.YILIP 9 190J10

OP Y.

2.

Memorandum in answer. to Sir Havilland de Sausmarez's Memorandum on

Companies inclosed in his despatch to H. E. the Governor

of the 19th. January, 1911.

332

-it eo bicona mommy #TOJOSTIL 1to Temur and sils Tejni od ea lionwo

asinsquou to ease and ni neljitć grzeu eroji ve and od 83 bns,‚DEIJ- .anido ni seenieud no gniɣTISO

boon I noin cinq re.duul eno vino ei erent

-10 Isincio) en Od sjnenn-me tas jo jei ji ¡jnveeng de moismem

to noijonas hoing and avan bluonɛ shiny ai gribni. eccoed of soNBA- jagim Biolo0 mi 19:10 enÏ .axisrt ngis.et tot ejate to viajeroeã and -jee juB Bin. .noitouse aloj od doeɩoue Bjna ofima owest lia soroine

.brajul .7 xíй to oben saw noi

-ivel ed blow B011 NB BARI NUGJT90 dduob o

to Isslo qued of Latines even I .78d jonghon tid TO-nu snlay ni elúa-

Aliw nomw mɔjaya s sjesto od ai Jo8100 V. .Tentaja is noisecup sides

and 1970 lomamoo ragong & aniqsed eltow soliv mi abend naiJiTo JBiena

9 .i ni borgare ed you noid naisit 90 of whicnstorg seinsqaoû „Jnandaujbe to sidegzoni su don aivoila sami da mi to rsq lsionsai't

.C9'Lemnu37 eo . .H (.58)

„liej vyusunat .hdus,ion part

We have considered Sir Havilland's Memorandum

and we desire to submit the following observations with reference to

it.

With regard to winding-up we are clear that the Hongkong Court is the only proper Court to make the order for wind-

-ing-up, having regard to the fact that the Companies in question are registered here.

It seems clear also that any orders of what-

-ever character, which effect any change whatever in the register,

fall within the Jurisdiction of the Hongkong Court.

As regards paragraph 1, on page 4 of Sir

Havilland's Memorandum, we submit that it is important to every Court

that its Jurisdiction should be preserved intact, and that there is no

sufficient cause shown whay an exception should be made in the matter

of winding-up. We agree, however, that auxiliary powers ought to be conferred on the Supreme Court of China in winding-up matters, to the

intent that it may have power to make orders, consequential upon the winding-up Order of the Hongkong Court, against British subjects within

its Jurisdiction.

As regards paragraph 2, on the same page, we contend that the words, "or in part" should obviously be omitted, be- -cause, if left in, they would have the effect of rendering a Hongkong Company, which was not only registered here but also carried on the bulk of its business here, amenable to thejurisdiction of H. M. Supreme Court for China, even though only one-hundredth part of its business was carried on outside of this Colony.

as follows:-

At page 4 of his Memorandum Sir Hvilland says

"It seems to me that when the whole of a Company's

business is in China, a judgment obtained in Hongkong

ought