CO129-568-9 Chung Chi Cheung- petition to appeal against decision of Hong Kong court 7-1-1938 - 28-12-1938 — Page 59

- 6 -

66

between the "Waters of the Colony" (as defined) on the one

hand, and national waters, territorial waters and leased

waters on the other, nor had any evidence been led by either

party in the Court below to establish such a distinction.

It is submitted, however, that even assuming that the

distinction is sound and that the crime was committed in

leased waters, the argument based on the proviso to Article 2

does not invalidate the submission of the Crown because if,

as Counsel for the appellant contended, the vessel was a

floating fragment of Chinese territory, then she was not

leased territory. Alternatively, the Crown submitted that the

appellant did not establish by evidence the facts necessary

to bring him within the protection (if any) afforded by the

proviso. (Copies of the Interpretation Ordinance, 1911, and

of the China Order in Council, as respectively amended, are

available in the Colonial Office Library).

13. The Full Court reserved judgment, and the written

judgment of the court dismissing the appeal was pronounced by

MacGregor, C.J., on the 15th October, 1937. A certified copy

of this judgment is amongst the documents forwarded to Reid

Sharman & Co., referred to in paragraph 3.

14. On the 16th October, 1937, Messrs. Hall Brutton & Co.,

the Solicitors for the appellant in Hong Kong, addressed a

letter to the Colonial Secretary of the Colony, requesting

that the execution of sentence on the appellant might be

respited in order that he might apply to the Judicial Committee

of the Privy Council for leave to appeal to His Majesty in

Council in forma pauperis. On the 23rd October, 1937, the

Officer Administering the Government of Hong Kong ordered

that sentence should be respited accordingly, and the

operation of such Order has been extended periodically up