CO129-457 - Public Offices - 1919 — Page 502

A

Knolssure in Shanghai Deap. No.127 of 15th March 1919 to Peking.

Copy.

-3900

T

MMI AICI deraŭ bajab

Confidential.

Shanghai

4th March, 1919.

492

.7 mod to saro sdi od male::-) de quog fish of quonod add svar 1

no idosanoo ni buanquaih snieg sẽ niaga bukier do ide gas I mİX 90♫

to all areɖ no bottoųsz anzoli

Add 19029.10„ylunan PII „Jangua dies to bíszek en dü BITOK 9dJ

ni Tabuů od3 10 (G) (1) QV #IÐI*A MÌ 'wal yɗ bad id konq" ouatiq

dallank (4" wa Ilow va "wal seenžio yo lewa binob ÞOR£ fionuað

ME I

OS XTRIS NOð tyried saco JHUBSTĘ 216 at dnemybuj s'acanidol Ti

moqueusam Mudad Bar lesqgo na Band THAIsot add. ni s'gnìX *M

isao (amo mi yous Aspio lo reiða I siið am storw ngaBİN LİF

balogue nomÈXLIW Ti beqqa and to gnized wiz wzoled `səted

ISWOT 53 m. tugaybuy mid 10 Joqywa ni ad nomugra gaibrit nt

#THOU IIN! ato v The Isaqya Um Laut de"tə barozq waarit bas ¿TUOD

Man dui Ne swak ỵILA INDIJKOM Jár al bedeliduq *nsægbut

JABLOT Sis beland .8), amoqu NAJ sana eniz „IVOVON „uo ad nioq si

54 10. 099n våt bus Jilava Jon blow dramabul

-No 03 NOVE DİREN Komadinat atque tot i fetwasam bas nolɛI

C

(ta)

Dear Fraser,

I have to-day received from the Supreme Court the depositions in the case Rex vs. Lee Kia Leng, who was convicted by Mr Robinson, Acting Police Magistrate on February 19 th, for attempting to import into China opium, the importation thereof

being prohibited by law,

The defendant, a British subject, was sentenced to

5 on the hard labour, has appealed to the full Court and has

been assigned Counsel to represent him. The conviction waS for the breach of Article 70 (1) (3) of the Order in Council,

1904.

Law.

As you will remember, Ir King'decided in 1914, in the

case of Rex vs. Horne, that the phrase "is prohibited by law*

in the Order in Council meant by English law, and not by Chinese

This judgment was the subject of correspondence between

Peking and yourself and myself, and on the 23rd February 1916,

I advised the Minister that I thought that case was rightly de-

cided. Mr Robinson in the present aase has decided that the

law referred to covers Chinese prohibitions of opium smuggling.

This being so, I am now called on as Crown Advocate to support,

on Monday next, if i think right, a view of the law in direct

contradiction of the view which I already expressed to the

דקי

Minister.

Unless Mr Robinson can in consultation with me, con-

vince me that his view is correct, my attitude will have to be

that I cannot argue against the appeal. In any event, it is re

grettable that this matter should come up again before a Briti

or International' Regulations has been put in force prohi bị ting

dealing in opium by British Subjects in China.

On the 4ht July last, I wrote a despatch to you

covering a draft suggested Opium Bye-law for the Foreign Settiơm

nent here, which I suggested should be further enforced by

Internati onkl/