CO129-390 - Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1912 [5-6] — Page 143

2.

17906

89010

aj fand bas,od pięga od drwol vult si erand noitoibainut saival two) -nii baðin ens to ading Jneretlih snit ud someeter :iriw enon ui Jadr Bob- enoit oilqqa ti noiestnos of bael blow Ji dning Jud Jonneo I zarið anidt Jon ob I Las ylojeniairoatimi two) reddis of ebay ed Frizim ¤à .vol to dejaya yoa rebnu aeinsqueo silug od nego atuon 8 BI JROJ ,asianquod antno od bedosjja snoidismuo Infosga ed [[ir orert bisa I isngrene and doldw to seomaticworio yn vraneeoer bezebrer vra folde grodynol wild beobni ¡trol modinol and nedt sybeIcond rajjed amui Juvol emoe ni noit910Ri): 3 98iorexs of x:nil Jale no wond yIbxed blpov Jwoj

noitos3 .moidalnijel wan eft ni 101 Febivorq noiterorib a 919# trywo dmins I,euit jneberq edi Ja yumescen Jduok on al doinw .(8) I ,moltaiceixut Joerih jaiva.: Jwo) reqong a Bi erent exerim badmur ad of to T9Jhun syisi e bivon? .od plugs of dwwol regorg eit si Jant rol podgroll ort to ni bejaan jon 918 doi anido advoë ni suiza asinaqmoo -eijel eu dal amitmom end ni Jud,etudut nið ná poinivorq eds. neo ev isual? ni beyensul esinaquo) .9.i Boone BLMOTionidaire 101 odol- ,brar eno end no „d‡ned-eno adrog mis, droll telito ni,witınd-eniN ent ei gnongnoli .hauri rendo ndi no yaoi noli ni bazarımıa ce inequo) dowe ni tuwo wild ons,18 Tot end tot isnansul,76jjal end tot eïjneo -1510 and to Besoging and rol noijoibaizuį evimiore svod bluɑda eɔsiq ni soitto bettziger Tiend zuiva. asinsquo) grozynol · NJ Tevo somISN- a noul .ylevitɔeqaer noitɔibeiwį Laineditreja7jxe bus Irinoloo writ froad Ilev e ibue eroliol atwol su to noijoibaitį, e.d to moitað bak I

•

་

old to ating Jaareltib end od bəil qe ni nobile daid as sɔituenq WBI gnidei-e yişqa retted neo e do it of snu ai bine mobgnië beðind and ni anteonuo naeninud or bas I Ju b. duine,des gue voy and ens mant

1

grodyron ent J enoidssiiqqe vd drov ris. ni berequan ynied dro abutical at Toi atsivercy ton ob I doll w amorner 90 VAN STEHT .Ju00 hur enoodo es ob bra sacoño muo yruquod s as gnol os „Juni evig hlnow woy Jenis rested ad blwow di dnids I,ed of ei soitto bersdeijer adi ezerw .dzwoð aði snano bas qodo od bewolis ad Jon bluoda ji

Holav Baarisud mind dig of avoixma (197 KB I

ovan of exil Ivona I oz Te.mue old yú beltjes sones roquí Jaer) to ei .moy of Jneinevnoɔ ai di 83 no.a as atniog owt sis no ereiv TendW) WOL

Broï vlersoni? .897umauo2 ob .7 .H(.ba)

and,

Attorney-General's Chambers,

Hongkong, 29th. March; 1912.70

137

In reply to your letter of the 23rd. ultimo I quite agree that there ought to be little if any difficulty in arriving at a onclusion on the question of the registry and the jurisdiction of the Courts although the proposals contained in your letter prima facie disclose fundamental differences.

a

·

As to jurisdiction "the elboration" is admittedly your own and goes far beyond any agreement arrived at either here or at our conference in London, which (as I have always understood it) was to give both courts concurrent and auxiliary jurisdiction with regard to "China Companies". You will remember that at the outset we were at issue as to the legal question of the power of your court under the existing law to wind up Companies registered here. You claimed that you had the power and we questioned it. If our position had been persisted in it may naturally have been assumed that we were trying to curtail your alleged existing jurisdiction and as we were anxious to avoid the slightest semblance of such an assumption I was, and am willing, to giv up any claim to exclusive jurisdiction in regard to companies register- -ed here and carrying on the principle part of their business in Shan- -ghai. It would seem that your new proposals would give to the Court in Shanghai no more jurisdiction that we are willing to concede, where- -as to compel the great majority of companies "domiciled" in China to apply to the Shanghai Court would mean to deprive us entirely of our jurisdiction and for no reason other than the fact that the recent judgment of Sir Francis Piggott questioned the validity of a system which had hitherto worked quite satisfactorily to all parties concerned I would also remind you of a fact of far reaching importance that the Court in Shanghai has no jurisdiction to deal with foreigners, and I submit your scheme could not be cemelusive conducive to the best interests of the Mercantile Community in the East generally, and that the curtailment of the jurisdiction of the court of Hongkong is undesir

F