CO129-383 - Public Offices - 1911 — Page 50

1

49

submitted, however, with deference that that decision is erroneous, because section 268 (1) (1) clearly includes

only those companies which have a principal place of

business in the United Kingdom, and moreover the courts having Jurisdiction under that section are expressly defined by paragraph 5 of it.

If, for any reason, the powers of the Shanghai Court

are defective, that cannot, it is submitted, be accepted

as a plea for taking away a Jurisdiction from the Hongkong Courts which has been exercised by them, apparently

satisfactcrily, for over forty years past.

With regard to that portion of Fr. Clementi's minute of 7/2/11 in which he says:- "It appears to me that there is much force in Sir Havilland's contention (see his

letter to the Governor of the 19th January 1911) "that

disciplinary powers require to be exercised on the spot

for the sake of good government and in justice to both

the complainants and defendants" we desire to say that

individual directors or shareholders will naturally have

to be sued in the place where they reside.

Similarly,

in regard to criminal proceedings against them, they

would have to be tried where they committed the offence.

In regard to Appellate Jurisdiction we think that,

as the general opinion of the legal profession here is

that the present syston is unsatisfactory, any change in

the constitution of the Appellate Court ought to be

general in its scope instead of being limited to

Companies only.

Lay

22nd February 1911.

(sd.). Fees Davies.

Attorney General.

(sa) H.E. Pollock

M.L.C., K.C.

(sd.) 0.0. Alabaster

Barrister at Ler,