CO129-536-9 Capt. T. Pritchard- case of yacht Tavy II v. SS. Sui Tai (Macao Ferry) 18-11-1931 - 13-8-1932 — Page 5

5-

as including Regulations under it. If that is

so, then under section 41(3) and (4), a fine

could be inflicted by a magistrate for breach

of Regulations in Table "M", with the

alternative of imprisonment in default of payment

(section 57 of Ordinance No.3 of 1890.) The

provisions regarding appeals in section 41(2)(c)

would then appear to apply, as in the case of a

conviction for an offence under the Merchant

Shipping Act.

Incidentally, although I think it must

be assumed that Table "M" has legal force, I am

not sure how that comes about.

Section 25(4)

enables the Governor in Council to make regulations

for purposes which are covered by the Table, but

I see nothing in the Ordinance itself to give the

Table any force. As the Table was enacted with the

Ordinance, presumably it was intended that it should

have effect except so far as it was amended by

Regulations. Perhaps some such provision has

been removed by a Law Revision Ordinance.

It is to be observed that section 41(1)

repeals the Merchant Shipping Act in relation

to ships registered in Hong Kong so far as it is

inconsistent with the Ordinance, but, as redundancy,

and not inconsistency, is apparent on a comparison

of paragraph 6 of Table "M" with section 419 of

the Act of 1894, this repeal does not seem to

affect the question.

.11.31.