CO129-474 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1922 [1-4] — Page 54

•kqoV

52

and that until it is overruled by a Court of Competent Jurisdiction the shares in question must be deemed to be

property situate in China, and subject to the China Treaty

of Peace Order in Council.

zedeinef. inrustedƐ no seredƐ vu

[nzanal yento #A „nok aft

.dmenet¶

au bearodni nad ydroqori ymaná to nɛiboð suð sag

,718

ard mor? dodeqaab a bevienst and Tomtevou add „XH tedd

sind od sonereter ddiw asino (od and rol statƐ to virėstosā

er deild min enzolni eded? To projetos? art doire ni redðna

asinequo? ni monede vd bednesetqat všteqorą żadd besivba si

edd eter vidimoð arð ni badnulle ne bobreger od drum

EviðoogzeTit soi??0 basĦ adi and bee bedrroqrooni at væequoð a no to retrigafi eoi770 broll and no are yard restock. Yo

e bounɛi mribodes? and ?i delý Tselduð bera „rednipell donent.

sored to vesti art to (IIVI) [ moitos” rahnu edecilitreo

bne sviculanoo bne Isalt? ed Eluow emma era liondo) nå tab10

.somedalset to siɗaqevai

and no stealtha Ingal too bed fuertoo avaď of

seob oded? to visteroe? odd dent duo taloq yodt bar vedtan no moždivorīdim to anoeset odd bedoup evad od tesqge Jon mi netada erit tedt animigo ziedi sead aresivhe nid doả dầu find-queh end bne grosano? ni odsudia véraqorq ers no¿Janup noqu alvitodem toedro déiw medit riskerust don saab etolerado

„noiniqo muoivong tiskt rabianodet og moich

L modanitesɔ To inengbat met derít benivbe era of

VTOV and no aww mauport v ["tenet verroddå to sasű sát nh

redniyar ierbinterf wild no neteda ton to rodidace od as eveni drengbul Bird derld has anomoli ni eðaudia ydreqorq eTOW vd of berister noiniqo end of moitienggo feoindemelk mi mi Jon To bauds Terkjede inengbul etdi,adath to vindemosƐ add ,he furrevo [idnu ynofol orld to wel art besivbe ere er al

brR

:

The Custodian in Hongkong has no jurisdiction in

China and therefore cannot give a certificate under Sec.1

(XVII) (c) of the Treaty of Peace Order in Council in

respect of these shares,

Asmming that the Judgment of Carrington J is

right the further difficulty arises that the Custodian in

Shanghai has not the power which is vested in the Hongkong

Custodian under Section 1(XVII) (coco) of the Order of

giving a final certificate that the property in question is

subject to the charge.

Therefore, should the Shanghai Custodian claim the

shares he will have the burden either of strictly proving

that they are actually subject to the charge, or on the

other hand of furnishing the Corporation with a satisfactory

indemnity.

There are other difficulties. For exemple, in the

event of the Hongkong Custodian taking action against the Corporation in Hongkong and the Fall Court reversing the decision of Carrington J this would not prevent the register

-ed holder of any such shares from subsequently suing the Corporation in Shanghai and taking the matter to the Privy Council which might restore Carrington's Judgment. The Corporation would then be compelled to replace such share- holder in his previous position out of its own funds.

The position therefore seems to resolve itself to this: Either the Government will give the Corporation a complete indemnity against all consequences of the transfer of such shares to the Hongkong Custodian, or the Corporation will be compelled for ite om protection to resist any steps taken by the Custodian even to the extent of obtaining the

final