CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933 — Page 45

Telephone No.: Whitehall 1234.

In

ly

NATIONAL

FOR D

SCHEME

ED MEN

DISABLED

RECOS

please quote Regd." No.

6 OCT 1932

ly

penser

5-46

TREASURY CHAMBERS,

WHITEHALL, S.W.1.

5th October, 1932.

나

Dear Calder,

In reply to your letter of the 30th ultimo

(92690/32) about the Hong Kong piracy case, I think there

is some misunderstanding as to the position taken by the

Treasury Solicitor. McCombe wrote to us semi-officially

on the 16th August, suggesting reasons that might be used

for or against the view that the expense of the reference

should be borne on Imperial Funds, and we replied the same

month that we were definitely of opinion that the expense

Should not be borne on Imperial Funds. On the 29th August

the Treasury Solicitor reported formally, sending copies

of the case and the Law Officer's opinion and raising the

question of incidence of the expense. It was shortly

after this that I wrote to inform you of our view on this

subject, in order to make sure that there was no mis-

It is only on the formal report of the

Treasury Solicitor that he is waiting for our directions

understanding.

J.A. Calder Esq.,

regarding

Colonial Office.