CO129-474 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1922 [1-4] — Page 51

MINUTES.

have two Law Officers' "furiSAND (8585/30006/20 Dom? and Bt of i

MINUTES NOT TO BE WRITTEN ON THIS SIDE.

84.4+/20569/21 Union).

At the same time the 1.0. did not

J

quote authorities for their views, while

the second occasion their junior took The exactly of perite vow

on

a number.

of

authorities

and stis quote

the vow has not leven testad

J

in the Counts

noturth standing

heee).

(So far as

I think that

2

L.O.

the rule that

opinions should not be sent to the Colonies

Ou

it would

this occasLED FRON

live well to

send out the opinions to H. Kong

Conf. def.

>

'first of all however w

had better send copy to Bt of f

letter on

36177/21

matten should again

But the

I be considered by

Treaty Execution Pommittee,

· Woud face on Cl. Celtic cust

funds. [J

[0 36177/21

Suice

any

14/3/22

Sir S. Grindle exfinerred this

opinion that we should eventually

вести

th

Treasury]

fet an

indemnity

M./B.

17/3

I leserve

my view on his

1113

AE@

173

Jes: when it is considered by the the lion make it dear that it. Kong will look totthely for con cinchamity, Lefore

I think we

L

we wihust. ft. King

moet get that

indemnity from the theaney

6.4.12.120

This was considered at /Treaty Excention Committee

that 24 fund. It was Marked

-

clearing office shoulet consult Inearung

endamisty and the

ww marwat

Bung

26/2/22

N° 37

Gov 36144

L.

भ

7

Sir,

49

11604

TU MAR 22

GOVERNMENT HOUSE..

HONGKONG. 23rd January, 1922.

I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt

of your despatch No.336 of the 12th October, 1921, regarding shares on the Shanghai register of the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation held by German nationals.

2.

I enclose a copy of a letter received from

the bank, from which it will be seen that the bank feel that they must in their own interests contest any application for a mandatory order, taking the case if necessary to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. They are prepared to register the Custodian if they receive an indemnity, and in that event they will be prepared to pay to the Custodian

the value of the rights to the new shares which were offered

to the shareholders recently. This sum would amount to

about £10,000. If the indemnity is not given the bank will

not be prepared to pay this sum to the Custodian, and

apparently he will have no claim against the bank in respect

of the new rights, because those rights have now been

forfeited as between the shareholders and the bank and the

Custodian can only stand in the shoes of the shareholders.

If the Custodian were to apply for a mandatory

order and were to succeed in the Privy Council, the bank

would have been put to considerable expense, by no means unreasonably incurred. If he were to succeed solely on the

ground

3.

THE RIGHT HONOURABLE

WINSTON CHURCHILL, M.P.,

80..

80.,

&c.