CO129-464 - Public Offices - 1920 — Page 96

„

ASTENINT23W

.rw.2 MOONOJ

BRITANIUMMOO JJA

JWT OT OBISJAQQA IN OT JJINOJOO JHT 204 STRADA KWORD INT JHA 30183*** AVOSA INT

DETOUR CHITA PATTIJ RIHT TO STAC

Art, Awana" PRAKSIJIT

. 1955, t

C

Li Hong Mi-

Privy Council Appeal No. 39 of 1919.

V.

92

Appellant

The Attorney-General of Hong Kong and others

-

Respondents

FROM

THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG.

JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL, DELIVERED THE 17TH FEBRUARY, 1920.

Present at the Hearing:

VISCOUNT HALDANE,

LORD BUCKMASTER,

LORD DUNEDIN,

LORD ATKINSON,

[Delivered by VISCOUNT HALDANE.]

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Hong Kong, dismissing an action brought by the appellant for a declaration that a deportation order made against him by the Governor of the Colony in Council was invalid, and for damages. The claim for damages has not been pressed, and the only question before the Board is that as to the validity of the order.

This order was made under the powers conferred by the Deportation Ordinance 1917, passed by the Governor of Hong Kong in Legislative Council. Although Hong Kong is a Crown Colony and the provisions of the Ordinance affect materially the rights of British subjects as they would be under the Common Law of England, there is no doubt as to the validity of these provisions and the Ordinance enacting them. Under Letters Patent the Crown had conferred on the Governor power, with the consent of his Legislative Council, to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Colony. It is clear that under a grant from the Crown of such powers the Government of the

A (C 1949--7) [10]