CO129-477 - Public Offices - 1922 — Page 392

Sin J. Raster de Bothell

Have

you any Rosons?

the Hearing dilemma is

comentat superficial,

leisure"

being scarcely susceptith

of mathematical computation.

45/1/22

Lu! Malkin is very keen on this affail & has talked ŵ me about if Sereial Times.

Of is our lithe Cuestion to

ask the Fresent men to do the Work for Nothing - to teisme ordreceive the 7 5 Juile is 4. Conceen got Try.

If they raise this secionly tem We shi. Confle privates with

retly, hat first.

to ash the live & rek lyk. Wemerot lege from HK.

4/2281

12

で

I have chiken The Burlen

subunit und dito.

In any further communication

on this subject, please and

No.

and address,

but to-

F 2970/2970/10.

not to wazi meraun by maine.

"The Under Secretary of State." Foreign Office,

London, 8.W.1.

sir,

C.O

46023

RECP

RESEP REL

REIGN OFFICE.

S.W.1.

391

18th September, 1922.

I am directed by the Marquess Curzon of Kedleston to inform you that he has had under consideration the desirability of providing some more satisfactory system for the hearing of appeals from the judge and assistant judge of the Supreme Court for China. Under the present system, an Appeal Court is constituted by the judge and the assistant judge, and

In cases appeals from either of them are heard by that court.

of difference of opinion the opinion of the judge prevails. As regarde 2. This system is obviously unsatisfactory. casee tried at first instance before the assistant judge, the appeal is in fact one from the assistant judge to the judge. But it is as regarde appeals in cases heard at first instance

In such by the judge that the position is really indefensible. cases the appeal will fail unless the judge can be persuaded that his original decision was wrong, and at any moment a case might arise in which an important appeal in a diminal case was dismissed because the judge, having tried the case in the first instance was of opinion that his decision should stand, though the assistant judge considered that it was wrong.

3. The result of the present system is that in civil matters appellants are tending to make use of their right to appeal direct to the Privy Council from the judgment at first instance. This is an expensive and inconvenient solution of the difficulty, and is not applicable as a rule in criminal cases. It is evident that some change should be made if possible, and, so far as

The Under Secretary of State,

Colonial office.

י

His/