CO129-491 - Public Offices - 1925 — Page 184

of a fin, every person concerned in the management shall also be held

to be guilty, unless he is able to prove that the actions committed without

his knowledge

Paul merely says

pole sover

of consent. The Atty

that Nemagee is the

of the business in questions,

that as he is not in

Hongkong, it is very doubtful how the conviction of

some person connected with his form

Mr.

堂

↑ Mr. Strachey.

Bir. J. Shuckburgh.

Bir O. Davis,

Bir G. Grindle,

Sir J. Masterton Smith,

Mr. Ormsby-Gore.

Mr. Amery.

DRAFT.

would operate

00 40

to bring

him r

made

by

others within the inference

the provision in question.

3. The Soft. notes that in

the opinion of Sir William Joguson-Sticks,

the Atty Paul's interpretation of Sec. of (1/(d) of Croke do of 19av is incorrect, whatever

1924

the Opnim Orace hand, as enacted by

have been the intention

of the

Section

See, a of the Quim

Gundt Orace 1904,

fact

may the Poft is advised that what in

it does is to make it possible to

parom.

fromscute anyone in Honghong who

has been a party to the commission

'an act done out of Houghing, which

of an

f

180

.192....

if committed in Honghong would be

offence. In this particular case it does not affear that the fectioncariend

the matter

Ebely

قا

any further,

(DE CAME

or would be

conoration

than proceedings under Sec. 4 lipas

the Atty Gaul suggestio

With regard to the question

clear

of evidence, it not that

or anyone

Nemagre

connected with

kim

had

anything

to do with the

J

sending of the tel. from Houghing

to the master

of the P.S. "Corgistan's

It is not possible to subpoena

or