CO129-376 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1911 [3-4] — Page 13

C

Mr Cox.

11

M. Kong Ordinance 34 of 1910.

I have examined this Ordinance

in conjunction with the Memos. attached to 10595 * 34459% and find that either the provisions of the

the various repealed Ordinances have been correctly embodied in the new

or their absence is intentional

on 10595.

Ordinance

occur

as explained on pitt of Memo In cases where variations has been with the

of new matter inserted I have checked the suma

Atty. Gent's Memo. on 34459 10.

"

In Sec 647 line 3 "of" is omitted

+

**

#

ft

9 the

"

Sec 13 (3) the words

Sec 13 (3) the words

#

? the addition of these words

would make better sense-

written in or upon the Crown Lease there of" omitted.

It

written in or upon such rew Crown Lease" omitted.

? of any

importance.

Zona Mik

#Ba.

Sec 21 (1) vide Memo 8 : apparently an incorporation of 4/00 3.4 AND 3/05 3.4 (not 4/00-Y

as stated on

hii ofs Memo. 105957.

all right.

This seema

only

Sec 212) Vide Memo &.

of the

Sec sy

Juhani

perhaps Dec 54 ).

be more

correct (vide

the addition words "in Part II" would

Schedule 2 of new Ordinance

please compare with Schedule to 6199 of Vol II of Rev. Edition.

on p. 409

This seems all right. Of the

4 Ordinances shown as unrepealed in Schedule to the 1899 Ordinance H have since been repealed

8/84 6. 8/98 reappear in the

new Ordinance

: and 7/96 is

purposely omitted (vide Memo 2).

46/09 is an addition to the Schedule. But as 8/98646/09 appear

in this Schedule, should not 8/08+ 31/10

also be included

1