CO129-477 - Public Offices - 1922 — Page 367

288

بختعة

E

366

of each case.

This Court, as a Chinese Court, cannot admit

that the mere fact of birth in a foreign country is sufficient

to turn the child of Chinese parents into a foreigner, nor, i with every respect to the consulates concerned, will we accept the certificates of foreign registration as conclusive against | the jurisdiction of the Mixed Court,

In future, when foreign nationality is claimed by defendants of Chinese origin, we propose to ascertain not only where defendant was born but where he is domiciled, whether he owns land in the interior (which a foreigner may not do), whether in trading he has held himself out as a Chinese or a foreigner, and generally whether he has asserted his foreign nationality and denounced

his Chinese nationality, or has, on the contrary, merely kept his foreign nationality concealed like a trump card

to be played only in an emergency. And taking all thesė

facts into consideration, we will then decide whether to

take jurisdiction or not.

In the present action the defendant did not appear

We are now when summoned and judgment was given by default. shown a letter from the Consul-General for Portugal, who states that defendant is registered as a Portuguese citizen, having been born in kaçao in 1878. While assuring Mr. Casanova of our high regard, and while disclaiming any intention of showing him any disrespect, we say that we cannot regard this as conclusive against the Mixed Court's jurisdiction. Fearing,

however, that the non-appearance of the defendant is due to a misapprehension of the Court's attitude, we are willing to re-open the case if he appears within three

days and either subaits to or pleads to the jurisdiction.