CO129-437 - Public Offices - 1916 — Page 526

A

524

Company* was framed with a view to Article 10 of

the order-in-Council and that Article 15 is only

intended to refer to China Companies and to Hongkong

Companies carrying on part of their business in

China,

Furthermore there is express provison in

the thina (Amendment) Order-in-Council 1913 as to

what a Home Company carrying on part of its business

in China is required to do, and it would not appear

that these requirements are intended to be inter-

ferred with by the article in question, If the

intention had been to change these requiremts it

would surely have been done by express words.

Everything in the order-in-"ouncil of 1915

and the ordinance of 1915 and in the "Objects and

Reasons" published in the Hongkong lovernment Gazette

at the time the Ordinance of 1915 was passed is con-

sistent with the theory that there was no intention

whatever to alter the obligations of liome companies

carrying on business in China, except as appears in

Article 10 of the order-in-Council 1915, and I submit

that the "Objects and Reasons* indicate clearly that

the intention was simply to give to the Supreme Court

for China the same jurisdiction in China over Companies

registered under the Ordinance which the Supreme Court

of Hongkong had over such Companies in Hongkong before

they were divided into "Hongkong" and "China" Companies

In conclusion, I beg to point out that juris-

diction over Home Companies carrying on business in

China is given to the bupreme Court for China by the

order-