CO129-380 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1911 [9-10] — Page 174

170

to the locus standi" of the Chinese Government in the Police Court, such decision as was given amounted to a mere dictum and was not in any way binding on any Court or person, and it was arranged that Mr. Hazeland should see the Chief Justice.

Yesterday morning Mr. Harston had a private interview with Mr. Hazeland, at which Mr. Hazeland intimated that the Chief Justice had referred him to the case In re Li Yu Mui, reported on page 227 of Part 5 of Volume 5 of the Hong Kong Law Reports, and particularly to that portion of the Judgment which is set forth on pages 230, 231, 232 and 232 of the re- port referred to.

Mr. Hazeland handed to Mr. Harston a report of the case which Mr. Harston perused and intimated that it seemed to him that the decision, so far as concerned the "locus standi" of the Chinese Government in the Police Court, was a mere dictum as it was not necessary to the decision of the case in ques- tion which only concerned a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

However

Mr. Hazeland intimated that he considered that the decision

was binding and that he could not therefore recognise the "10- cus standi" of Mr. Harston as the representative of the Chinese

Government.

Since our interview with Mr. Hazeland last above mentioned

perusing we have had an opportunity of peruse the case of Rex v. Sun

Ah Wan argued and decided before and by the Full Court on the

6th and 8th January 1910 and reported on page 33 and the fol-

lowing pages of Part 1 of Volume 5 and also on page 43 and

44 of Part 2 of Volume 5 of the Hong Kong Law Reports

which case Mr. Justice Gompertz made the following remarks; -

--

in

Sir Francis Piggott in his very learned and

"very careful Judgment delivered on May 29th 1905 in

"Wong Ka Cheong's case intimated that a Foreign

"Government had no "locus standi" in extradition

"proceedings.

The learned Chief Justice had not

-2-