CO129-380 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1911 [9-10] — Page 180

176

question could meet those objections.

(3) That the Law Officers aparing were expressing

the desire of the Executive Government of Great

rendered necessary by the objections

Britain

to the procedure adopted) that the extradition

in question should take place.

We fully appreciate that so far as concerns the question of the "locus standi" of the chinese Government inthe Sur eme Court on the hearing of the argument on any Writ of Habeas Corpus the decisions of the Chief Justice in the cases of Wong Ka Cheong and Li Yu Mui above referred to, are binding deci- sione though with the profoundest respect to the ratio decidendi in each of those decisions we would emphasise that a different view of the position is taken in the English Courts but we firmly submit that so far as concerns the "locus standi" of the Chinese Government at the Police Court the decision in those cases (so far as it purported to affect that particular locus standi") amounts to a mere "dictum" and is not binding upon any Court or person, and it is for that rea-

son that we have ventured to refer in detail to the case In re

Galway.

In this connection we would refer to that portion of the

judgment of the Chief Justice in the case of Wong Ka Cheong

above referred to which is contained on page 9 of Part 1 of

Volume 1 of the Hong Kong Law Reports where he (inter alia)

remarked: -

"Looking at the question merely as one arising in

"connection with an application for a Habeas Corpus

"at Common Law, and assuming that interested parties

"may appear on such application I do not think that

"the Chinese Government could, as such, appear for

"it cannot divest itself of the position in which

Its rights "the Extradition Ordinance has placed it.

-8-

Page 180Page 181