CO129-536-9 Capt. T. Pritchard- case of yacht Tavy II v. SS. Sui Tai (Macao Ferry) 18-11-1931 - 13-8-1932 — Page 4

of line is an appeal that is the obvious

Office is not

4

Jamedy.

ottunk we she ask for a

refort & a cosy the frouediup. Гер

Pechofs & Rotoran D. Gurton will Ser if we can come to any Conclusion as t Whaler an affeal lics.

AB

28/μ

If the conviction was under the Merchant

Shipping Act, section 419 (2) (which I assume applies to the Colonies), the proceedings would have been under section 41(2)(a) of Ordinance No.10 of 1899, and

under section 41(2)(c) an appeal would lie under the

provisions of sections 98 and 103 of Ordinance No.3 of

1890, as amended by section 17 of Ordinance No.23 of

1927, on any question of law, jurisdiction, or fact,

but not apparently against sentence. The appeal,

however, must be lodged within seven days: the time

for appealing therefore expired long ago.

The International Collision Regulations,

mentioned in Ordinance No.10 of 1899, Table "M",

paragraph 6, are the same regulations as are mentioned in section 419(2) of the Merchant Shipping Act (see

definition in section 2 of the Ordinance); but if the

conviction was in respect of an offence against

paragraph 6 of Table "M", and not under the Merchant

Shipping Act, different considerations arise. It

seems that, under section 40(3) of the Interpretation Ordinance (No.31 of 1911), references in Ordinance

No.10 of 1899 to "this Ordinance" should be construed

as