CO129-383 - Public Offices - 1911 — Page 47

46

At page 8 of his Memorandum Siz Havilland says 28 follows:-

"It seems to me that when the whole of a Company's "business is in China, a judgment obtained in Hongkong "ought not unless the company has appeared and contested "or admitted the claim in the Hongkong Court to be enfor- "ead by the British Courts in China without the company "having an opportunity of answering the claim in Shanghai "or in one of the Frovincial Courts".

This introduces a new principle of law and would put these companies on a different footing from ordinary de- fendants whether residing within or out of jurisdiction.

It is submitted, therefore, with deference, that the Court here ought to be entitled to continue to do whet it has done in the past, namely, to enter judgment under the corresponding section in our Code to Order 14, or for default of appearance or pleading.

As regards all the Directors being British Sir Havil- and himself conceded, at his first conference with the Attorney General that the preponderance of them should be British, the reason being that only British subjects would be amenable to the jurisdiction of the British court in Shanghai. The Attorney General does not desire to press his suggestion that all the directors should be British and we agree with Sir Havilland in thinking that the Auditors should be British, We would suggest that, if practicable, all the directors of such companies should be British for the first year after incorporation and after the first year a preponderance should te British. The first year would cover the issue of the prospectus and to have all the directors responsible for statements in their prospectus would be, it is submitted, reasonable and desirable. In addition to the auditors the

liquidators and receivers should be British and amenable