[ { "id": 278684, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-138 - Sir MacDonnell - 1869 [6-7]", "page_number": 253, "title": "CO129-138 - Sir MacDonnell - 1869 [6-7]", "content_text": "HONGKONG.\n\nENCLOSURE No. 3\n\nin C. S. O. No. 1796.\n\nExtracts from the Judgments in\n\nthe Case of PISANI\n\nv. LAWSON (8 Scott, 180. 8 Dowling, P. C. 57.\n\n6 Bing, N. C. 30,\n\n3 Jurist, 1153.)\n\nThe Daily Press.\n\nHONGKONG, JUNE 19TH, 1869.\n\nSUPREME COURT.\n\nCRIMINAL SESSIONS.\n\nBEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE SMALE.\n\nThe June sessions were opened yesterday morning at 10 o'clock, and shortly after the Chief Justice gave judgment in the case of Regina v. Souza. He said :-\n\nThe Criminal Sessions having again been opened, it is incumbent on me to deliver my decision on the objection taken by Mr. Hayllar, for the defendant, to the information filed in this case. The questions are difficult. Ever since the argument, my attention has been much drawn to other important cases almost daily, so that I have not considered the case as fully as I could wish, and my arguments are less perfect than they would be if I had had more time or more robust health.\n\nIn this case, the Attorney-General has signed an information (the form here ordinarily substituted by Ordinance for a \"true bill\" by the grand jury in England) against the defendant for a misdemeanor. First count, in having published a defamatory libel in a newspaper, O Echo do Povo, in the Portuguese language, concerning Mr. Pereira, Procurador at Macao, at Victoria, on the 3rd of May last. Second count, for the same libel setting out the words charging Mr. Pereira with bribery, extortion, and corruption in his office at Macao, and with other acts as being punishable by Articles 318 and 314, of the Penal Code in force there.\n\nThe Attorney-General having declined to do so, Mr. Pollard, retained by Mr. Pereira, conducted the prosecution as one by a private person. Mr. Hayllar appeared for the defendant on the 18th of May last. He read an affidavit, dated the 18th of May, by defendant, in which it was deposed that Mr. Pereira was a domiciled inhabitant of Macao, under the jurisdiction of Portugal, and a Portuguese subject, and that he was resident in Macao, and that he was then in Hongkong solely for the purpose of this cause, and he asked that the information might be quashed on the ground that Mr. Pereira had no locus standi here to prosecute as a private prosecutor, and also that there was no power whatever to prosecute for this libel in this Court on several grounds, the main ground being that a libel on this foreigner, however respectable, is not distinguished as to be a subject for an ex-officio information.\n\nIn England, as tending to war, it was not within the Criminal Jurisdiction of this Court. At the conclusion of the argument, I reserved the benefit of the objection to be taken in arrest of judgment. On the 19th of May last, Mr. Hayllar pleaded a justification under Lord Campbell's Act, and thereupon issue was joined. The Defendant filed an affidavit to show that delay was necessary for his defence, and the prosecution filed an affidavit in answer. I adjourned the case until these June Sessions.\n\nOn this, Mr. Pollard urgently requested me to allow the question of Jurisdiction to be re-argued. I had in May great doubts as to my jurisdiction: but I thought it due to the prosecutor, Mr. Pereira, to allow him to make manifest the falsity of the libel, of paramount importance to all honourable minds, as I thought. If my decision had been left as it was, the innocence of the gentleman and lady charged by this libel might have been made manifest (assuming, as Mr. Pollard did, their entire innocence, which I do not question), and with strong moral grounds, which sometimes turn the scale in doubtful legal questions, the question of Jurisdiction might afterwards have been decided by me.\n\nTaking the position the prosecutor by his Counsel took, he has forced on for decision the legal before the moral question in this case. The question was re-argued on the 3rd instant. I should far exceed the limits of propriety if I were to comment fully on the able arguments on both sides, on the questions raised.\n\nFirst—whether any libel on any non-resident foreigner, not being \"distinguished\" according to the meaning of that word in Libel Law, can be the subject of criminal prosecution in any form in our Courts? Second—whether any such libel can be the subject of prosecution by the libelled prosecutor in a criminal prosecution conducted by and under the responsibility of himself alone, especially in this Colony, where there is, as I believe, a public prosecutor, the Attorney-General?\n\nRecurring eventually to the arguments on each side, but not discussing them specifically, I proceed to decide so much of the law as is necessary as to the points raised. Mr. Starkie divides remedies in respect of libels into two classes. First, \"Of a Civil nature, which give a remedy in damages to the injured individual.\" Second, \"Of a Criminal nature, which are devised for the security of the public.\"\n\nNow it is not necessary to consider the civil remedy of an alien for a libel very minutely. Mr. Pollard contended at great length that every alien friend resident abroad, as in France or Portugal, has a remedy by action for a libel published in England against him. Cases considered to support the right of action for libel by non-resident foreigners were cited.\n\nOf these, one case was, that of the Duke of Brunswick v. Harmer, 14 Q. B. 185, and the case, or rather series of cases, of the Duke of Brunswick v. Gregory were referred to; but in all these cases it was apparent that the Duke was resident and had a place of residence in England. And Pisani v. Lawson, 8 Dowl. P. C. 57, is, I believe, the only authority cited to the effect that an alien, never naturalised, but resident abroad at the date of the libel, can come into this country afterwards and sustain an action for the libel published while he was out of the jurisdiction.\n\nBut did that case decide the broad question? Pisani being a servant of the Queen in the Embassy at Constantinople, was for all English purposes within the Queen's protection. Mr. Smith, the author of Leading Cases, argued the question for the Plaintiff on that ground, and was content to obtain the judgment of the Court on that ground only.\n\nWithout, however, professing to have any opinion on this point, I assume that an alien friend resident abroad may bring a Civil action for libel on him. Why? Because an action on the case for libel, like other actions for tort, is transitory, and might be laid at Macao with a videlicet in Victoria in Hongkong.\n\nThis principle, however, does not apply to a criminal procedure in our courts for libel. I must here recur to Mr. Starkie's second division as to libels, i.e., treating them as of a Criminal nature, for the security of the public. Now indictable libels are well divided in \"Russell on Crimes,\" into nine classes, and it tends very much to the elucidation of the precise limits of Criminal Jurisdiction as to libel if the first eight of these classes are taken together, and considered in opposition to the ninth class of indictable libels.\n\nIn 1 Rees on C. and M., page 332, they are thus enumerated: 1. Against the Christian religion. 2. Against Morality. 3. Against the Constitution. 4. Against the King. 5. Against the two Houses of Parliament. 6. Against the Government. 7. Against the Magistrates and the administration of Justice. 8. Against private Individuals. 9. Against foreigners of distinction.\n\nEvery person must admit that the first seven classes above enumerated must be read (if expressed at full) with this limitation, within this country and not within any other country. Must the eighth class of libels against private individuals, be limited by the same words, within this country, and not within any other Country? This is the whole question.\n\nCriminal Laws, as distinguished from Civil remedies, are solely to repress acts against the peace, contra pacem, and the reason given by Hale and other text writers is that the indictment lies to prevent assaults or other breaches of the peace by the injured party—a ground not applicable to foreigners who are beyond the Queen's peace.\n\nIf all foreigners were included under the words \"private individuals,\" in the eighth class, the ninth class would be entirely unnecessary; but if no foreigner is included in class eight, then inasmuch as some, i.e., \"distinguished\" foreigners, are said to be for the benefit of the Sovereign protected from libel by the Criminal Law, this ninth class is necessary.\n\nPage 250\n\nIn9649/64", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-138 - Sir MacDonnell - 1869 [6-7].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 287461, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-157 - Sir MacDonnell Acting Governor Sir Kennedy - 1872 [4-5]", "page_number": 31, "title": "CO129-157 - Sir MacDonnell Acting Governor Sir Kennedy - 1872 [4-5]", "content_text": "# An Ordinance enacted by the Governor of Hongkong, with the Advice of the Legislative Council thereof, to amend Ordinance No. 6 of 1845, entitled \"An Ordinance for the Establishment of a Supreme Court of Judicature at Hongkong,\" to reconstitute the said Court and to abolish the Summary Jurisdiction Court.\n\n1872.] WHEREAS it is expedient to amend Ordinance No. 8 of 1846, to reconstitute the said Court by providing for the Appointment of a Puisne Judge for the Supreme Court of Hongkong and to abolish the Court of Summary Jurisdiction: Be it enacted by the Governor of Hongkong, with the Advice of the Legislative Council thereof, as follows:-\n\n## Title.\n\nRegistered May 25th 1872\n\n## Preamble.\n\nI. Section V. of Ordinance No. 6 of 1845, is hereby repealed.\n\n## Repeal of Sec. V. of No. 6 of 1845.\n\nII. Ordinance No. 7 of 1862, entitled \"An Ordinance to establish a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and to authorize the Appointment of a Judge thereof,\" and Ordinance No. 1 of 1871, entitled \"An Ordinance to amend No. 7 of 1862, and to provide for the Summary Trial of Cases in the Supreme Court,\" are hereby repealed.\n\n## Abolition of the Summary Court.\n\nIII. From and after the passing and coming into Operation of this Ordinance, the Supreme Court of Judicature at Hongkong shall consist of, and be holden by and before a Judge to be called the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Hongkong and before a Puisne Judge of the said Court, both of the said Judges to be appointed by Letters Patent under the Public Seal of the Colony, from Time to Time, by the Governor of Hongkong, in accordance with such Instructions as he may receive through one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, and the said Judges shall respectively hold their Offices during the Pleasure of Her Majesty, subject to Suspension by the Governor in like Manner as other Officers in the Colony.\n\n## Constitution of Court.\n\nIV. In Case the Office of either of the said Judges shall become vacant by Death, temporary Illness, Absence or otherwise, it shall be lawful for the Governor to appoint another fit and proper Person to fill either of the said Offices until Her Majesty's Pleasure be known, or until the said Judge shall resume the Duties of his said Office: Provided that in Case of a Vacancy occurring in the Office of Chief Justice by reason of his Death, Absence, Illness or otherwise, it shall be lawful for the Puisne Judge to, and he shall fill the said Office, until the Governor has appointed some fit and proper Person to fill the same as hereinbefore provided.\n\n## The Court to fill Vacancy occasioned by Death, etc.\n\nV. Save as hereinafter provided and where the State of the Business of the Supreme Court shall so permit, and where it is otherwise practicable, all Suits for Claims of more than Five hundred Dollars and upwards, formally instituted under \"The Hongkong Code of Civil Procedure,\" and all Motions and Applications to the said Court arising out of or Incidental to such Suits (except Motions of Course and all such Motions and Applications as ordinarily are by the Practice of the said Court or by any Rules of the said Court to be hereafter framed may be made before a Judge in Chambers) and all Applications and Motions arising out of any Trial at any Criminal Sessions held in the Colony, and any Cause, Matter or Proceeding arising out of or belonging, or incidental to any Prerogative Writ issued by the Court, and any Appeal from any Order, Judgment or Decree made or passed by any Judge sitting in Bankruptcy, and any Appeal from any Judgment or Decision of any Police Magistrate, or any Cause, Matter or Proceeding arising out of any Case stated by any Police Magistrate for the Opinion of the Court, shall be tried, heard and decided before and by the full Court, consisting of the Chief Justice and Puisne Judge: Provided always that in all Suits where a Jury has been empanelled to try any Suit or Issue of Fact, the Chief Justice or Puisne Judge shall alone preside at the Trial of such Suit, or Issue of Fact.\n\n## The Court to be held by both Judges.\n\nVI. An Appeal shall lie to the full Court from any Decision, Judgment or Order made or passed by any Judge in Chambers, upon any Summary Motion or Application, by Leave of such Judge, and upon such Terms, Restrictions or Conditions as he thinks fit to impose; and from any Judgment, Order or Decree made or passed by any Judge under the Summary Procedure Clauses of the \"Civil Code,\" for the Recovery of Claims not exceeding Five hundred Dollars; and by Leave of the Judge making the same, from any Order, Judgment or Decree made or passed by any Judge sitting in Bankruptcy.\n\n## Appeal to the full Court.\n\nVII. Except as hereinafter provided where upon the Trial or Hearing of any Suit, Motion or Application by and before the full Court, the Judges shall differ in their Opinions, the Judgment of the Chief Justice shall be taken to be the Judgment of the Court: Provided always that where the Matter comes before the Court by way of Motion for a new Trial, or of Appeal, and the Judges shall differ in their Opinions that Judgment shall be taken to be the Judgment of the Court which is adverse to the Party moving for a new Trial or to the Appellant.\n\n## Judgment of Court how to be defined.\n\nVIII. There shall be and belong to the Supreme Court sitting in its Summary Jurisdiction the following Officers, that is to say A Clerk of Court, an Interpreter, a Shroff, and a Bailiff and such and so many Officers as to the Governor of the Colony shall from Time to Time appear to be necessary.\n\n## Officers of the Court in its Summary Jurisdiction.\n\nIX. It shall be lawful for all Attornies and Solicitors duly enrolled in the Supreme Court to practice as Advocates in the said Court sitting in its Summary Jurisdiction in the same Manner as they have hitherto been permitted to practice in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction.\n\n## Attornies, &c., to practice as Advocates.\n\nX. The Judges of the Supreme Court may frame Rules and Orders for regulating the Practice of the said Court, its Times of Sitting and the Forms of Proceedings therein, to be approved of by the Legislative Council, and with the like Approval may rescind, vary alter the same.\n\n## Judges to frame Rules.\n\nXI. Wherever the Term \"Chief Justice\" or \"Judge of the Summary Jurisdiction Court\" occurs in any existing Ordinance, it shall be read and construed as applying to the Judges of the Supreme Court.\n\n## Interpretation of the Term \"Chief Justice.\"\n\nXII. There shall be no Period of Vacation for the Supreme Court sitting in its Summary Jurisdiction.\n\n## Vacation.\n\nXIII. This Ordinance and Ordinance No. ... of 1872, shall be read and construed as one Ordinance.\n\n## Construction.\n\nXIV. This Ordinance shall not come into Force until Her Majesty's Confirmation thereof shall have been proclaimed in the Colony by the Governor.\n\n## Suspending Clause.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-157 - Sir MacDonnell Acting Governor Sir Kennedy - 1872 [4-5].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 287462, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-157 - Sir MacDonnell Acting Governor Sir Kennedy - 1872 [4-5]", "page_number": 32, "title": "CO129-157 - Sir MacDonnell Acting Governor Sir Kennedy - 1872 [4-5]", "content_text": "# Title.\n\nPreamble.\n\nShort title.\n\nclause.\n\nAn Ordinance enacted by the Governor of Hongkong, with the Advice of the Legislative Council thereof, to consolidate the Procedure and Practice of the Supreme Court and amend the Provisions of the Law relating thereto, and to give to the Supreme Court Summary Jurisdiction in certain Cases.\n\n1872.]\n\n[\n\nWHEREAS it is expedient to simplify and facilitate the procedure and practice of the Supreme Court of Judicature in its Common Law and Equity Jurisdictions and to amend and consolidate the provisions of the Law relating thereto, and to give to the Supreme Court Summary Jurisdiction in suits not exceeding Five hundred Dollars: Be it enacted by the Governor of Hongkong, with the Advice of the Legislative Council thereof, as follows:-\n\n1. This Ordinance may be cited for all purposes as \"The Hongkong Code of Civil Procedure.”\n\n## Interpretation\n\n2. In the interpretation of this Ordinance the expression \"The Court\" shall mean the Supreme Court and shall include the Chief Justice or other presiding Judge in Chambers, except where the nature of the provision or the context shall be repugnant to such construction. The expression \"The Civil Code\" shall mean this Ordinance.\n\n## This Ordinance not to affect.\n\n## Repeal of certain Ordinances.\n\n## All civil suits to be instituted under this Ordinance.\n\n8. Nothing in this Ordinance contained shall be deemed:\n\n1. To affect the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in respect of the grant of prerogative writs;\n\n2. To affect the procedure and practice of the Vice-Admiralty Court or of the Courts of Probate and Bankruptcy;\n\n3. To affect any suit, action, or other proceeding instituted at the time of the commencement of this Ordinance: Provided always that in case the parties to any such suit, action, or other proceeding shall desire to carry on and continue the same, so far as may be practicable under the provisions of this Ordinance, the Court may in its discretion permit them so to do upon such terms and conditions, as it may think reasonable.\n\n4. The Ordinances and Sections of Ordinances appearing in the Schedule hereto, are hereby repealed; If any case shall arise for which provision may not have been made by this Ordinance, so often as the same shall happen, the Court may in its discretion apply or permit to be applied any provision of the law now in force, so far as the same may be applicable to the circumstances of such case, and so far as the same shall not conflict with this Ordinance and can be made auxiliary thereto, for the purpose of doing justice between the parties.\n\n## Practice under the Civil Code.\n\n5. Subject to the provisions herein before contained, all civil suits and proceedings in the Court, shall, from and after the commencement of this Ordinance and during the continuance thereof, be instituted and carried on in the manner hereinafter provided.\n\n## DECISION OF QUESTIONS WITHOUT FORMAL SUIT.\n\n## Questions of Fact.\n\n6. Where the parties between whom a suit might be instituted are agreed as to any question of fact to be determined between them, they may by consent and by order of the Supreme Court or other Court on summons,—which order the Court may make on being satisfied that the parties have a real interest in the determination of such question, and that the same is fit to be tried,—proceed to the trial of any question of fact without any petition presented or other pleading.\n\n## In what cases applicable.\n\n## Issue.\n\n7. Such question may be stated for trial in an issue, and such issue may be set down for trial, and tried accordingly, as if the question stated were to be determined at the hearing of an ordinary suit.\n\n## Money payment.\n\n8. The parties may, if they think fit, enter into an agreement in writing, which shall be embodied in an order of the Court, that on the finding of the Court in the affirmative or negative of such issue, a sum of money, fixed in the agreement, or to be ascertained by the Court upon a question inserted in the issue for that purpose, shall be paid by one of the parties to the other, with or without any costs.\n\n## Costs.\n\n9. Where no agreement is entered into as to costs, the costs of the whole proceedings shall be in the discretion of the Court.\n\n## Effect of decree.\n\n10. The issue and proceeding and decree shall be recorded, and the decree shall have the same effect as a decree in a contested suit.\n\nPage 31\n\nRegistered\n\nplay\n\n1072\n\n31", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-157 - Sir MacDonnell Acting Governor Sir Kennedy - 1872 [4-5].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 290175, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-161 - Public Offices - 1872", "page_number": 339, "title": "CO129-161 - Public Offices - 1872", "content_text": "War \n\nLand Boa \n\nMisce \n\n·OF \n\nshort of meeting the requirements of the place, and for many reasons, which it is not necessary to enter upon at present, I think its repeal, and the substitution of a new measure, more suited to the circumstances of the colony, would be a boon to the mercantile community. When the time comes for legislation on this subject I am inclined to think that most of the Provisions of the two Acts of the Government of Tasmania, 34 Vict. Nos. 32 and 33, might be adopted with advantage.\n\nClaims against the Government.-There is no provision in the Colonial Law on this head; a Petition of Right may be presented to the Governor and by him referred to the Supreme Court, but there is no sort of machinery provided for carrying out such a proceeding. If legislation on this subject should be thought desirable, I would recommend the adoption of the Act of the Government of Western Australia, 31 Vict. No. 7.\n\n# \n\nApplication of Imperial Statutes to the Colony-By directions contained in a despatch of the Secretary of State about the year 1858, no Imperial Statutes are to be extended to Hong Kong, as far as they may apply to local circumstances,\" but their provisions must be specially enacted in the shape of an Ordinance. It seems to me that this rule might be relaxed with advantage. It is very difficult to keep pace with the Imperial Legislation of the day, and many Statutes are passed of great practical utility, and which require very little if any modification for the purpose of being applied in Hong Kong. In Western Australia the Criminal Law Consolidation Acts of England were introduced by one section of the Colonial Act, 29 Vict. No. 5, whereas in Hong Kong the same Acts are turned into Local Ordinances, occupying upwards of 120 pages.\n\nAct 31 Vict., No. 8 of the Government of Western Australia, is a specimen of the Practice existing in that colony of adopting Imperial Statutes en bloc, so far as they can be applied to the circumstances of the colony.\n\nAPPEALS.\n\nBy the rules which regulate Appeals from the Supreme Court of Hong Kong to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, no Appeal is allowed (except by special leave to be granted by the Judicial Committee itself) from any Judgment in which the matter in dispute is not above £500 in value.\n\nI would strongly urge that the rule which is in force in the Cape and, I believe, other colonies, whereby the Colonial Court can, in certain cases, grant special leave to Appeal, should be extended to Hong Kong. This would effect a vast saving of time and money, and prevent the hardship which may, in cases of this kind, be inflicted upon an unsuccessful defendant whom the Court has no power to protect from execution on the Judgment, pending the application for special leave to Appeal which has to be made in London.\n\nI avail myself of this opportunity to submit a scheme which I have long advocated, and which would, I believe, meet with success in relation to Appeals from Hong Kong, the Straits Settlements, and Her Majesty's Supreme Court for China and Japan established at Shanghai.\n\nThe colony of Hong Kong is about equi-distant from Singapore and Shanghai---the steam communication occupying about the same number of days, which, according to the monsoon, varies between four and eight.\n\nIt appears to me that the Chief Judges of the three Courts might form an intermediate Court of Appeal, whose decision in cases not exceeding ten thousand dollars should be final, subject to special leave to Appeal to the Privy Council.\n\nIf the inconvenience and expense which might arise from the necessity of the three Judges meeting to hear the Appeal in open Court should be urged as an objection, a case for their opinion might be stated by the parties, accompanied by arguments in writing, to be printed and forwarded in sealed packets from the Court in which the Judgment appealed against was pronounced to the Judges of the other two Courts, who might return the same with their respective judgments, the decision of the majority prevailing. In cases above $10,000 the right to appeal further to the Privy Council should be as of right.\n\nI am inclined to think that a local \"Cour de Cassation\" such as I have suggested would operate as a useful kind of breakwater between the Appellants from the three Courts in question and the Judicial Committee; besides providing an expeditious and inexpensive redress to suitors who are generally appalled at the prospect of an appeal to the Privy Council, and yet are not disposed to submit finally to the adverse decision of one Judge only, when they are advised that there is ground for questioning its correctness.\n\nFebruary 1872.\n\nJULIAN PAUNCEFOTE,\n\nAttorney-General of Hong Kong.\n\nAn Ordinance enacted by the Governor of Hongkong, with the Advice of the Legislative Council thereof, to simplify and assimilate the Procedure and Practice of the Supreme Court in its Common Law and Equity Jurisdictions and to amend and consolidate the Provisions of the Law relating thereto.\n\nHEREAS it is Expedient to simplify and assimilate the\n\nW procedure and practice of the Supreme court in its\n\nCommon Law and Equity Jurisdictions and to amend and consolidate the provisions of the Law relating thereto : Be it enacted by the Governor of Hongkong, with the Advice of the Legislative Council thereof, as follows:-\n\nThis Ordinance may be cited for all purposes as \"The Hongkong Code of Civil Procedure.\"\n\nIn the Interpretation of this Ordinance the Expression \"The court\" shall mean the Supreme court and shall include the chief Justice or other presiding Judge in chambers, except where the nature of the provision or the context shall be repugnant to such construction. The Expression \"the Civil Code\" shall mean this Ordinance.\n\nNothing in this Ordinance contained shall be deemed :\n\n1. To affect the Jurisdiction of the Supreme court in respect of the grant of prerogative Writs or in any other respect whatever;\n\n2. To affect the procedure and practice of the Vice-Admiralty\n\ncourt or of the courts of probate and Bankruptcy;\n\n3. To affect any Suit, Action, or the other proceeding instituted at the time of the commencement of this Ordinance :\n\nprovided always that in case the parties to any such Suit, Action, or other proceeding she desire to carry on and continue the same, so far as may be practicable under the provisions of this Ordinance, the court may in its Discretion permit them so to do upon such Terms and conditions, as it may think reasonable.\n\nFrom and after the commencement of this Ordinance, and during the continuance thereof all the provisions contained in any Ordinances of the colony relating to the practice and procedure of the court in its common Law and Equity Jurisdictions shall be, and are hereby suspended subject to the last preceding Section, and to the proviso next hereinafter contained, that is to say; provided that if any case shall arise for which provision may not have been made by this Ordinance, so often as the same shall happen, the court may in its Discretion apply or permit to be applied any provision of the law now in Force, so far as the same may be applicable to the circumstances of such case, and so far as the same shall not conflict with this Ordinance and can be made auxiliary thereto, for the Purpose of doing Justice between the Parties.\n\nPractice under the Civil Code.\n\nSubject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, all civil Suits and proceedings in the court, in its common Law and Equity Jurisdictions, shall from and after the commencement of this Ordinance and during the continuance thereof be instituted and carried on in the Manner hereinafter provided.\n\nDECISION OF QUESTIONS WITHOUT FORMAL SUIT.\n\nQuestions of Fact.\n\nWhere the parties between whom a Suit might be instituted are agreed as to any question of fact to be determined between them, they may by consent and by order of the Supreme court or other court on Summons,-which order the court may make on being satisfied that the parties have a real interest in the determination of such Question, and that the same is fit to be tried, proceed to the Trial of any Question of fact without any petition presented or other pleading.\n\nSuch Question may be stated for Trial in an Issue (Form 1.), and such Issue may be set down for Trial, and tried accordingly, as if the Question stated were to be determined at the hearing of an ordinary suit.\n\nThe parties may, if they think fit, enter into an Agreement in writing, which shall be embodied in an order of the court, that on the Finding of the court in the affirmative or negative of such Issue, a Sum of Money, fixed in the Agreement, or to be ascertained by the court upon a Question inserted in the Issue for that purpose, shall be paid by one of the parties to the other, with or without any Costs.\n\nPrinted by T. Brettell & Co, 51, Espert Street,--W.\n\n1434\n\n334", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-161 - Public Offices - 1872.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 290247, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-161 - Public Offices - 1872", "page_number": 411, "title": "CO129-161 - Public Offices - 1872", "content_text": "3. Lucens Gate Terrace, London S. W. 405 War Land Boat Visco 08\n\nI consider 20 ... me differ from ad l'annscepte. He purposes. Chief puter & 2 Puisne Judges, thank only we Puisne should be appointed. - Judge will be ample for Hay, and Jud thefin fillas the Jamaica Law N.18 of 1872 and want that the Supreme Court shall consist of two judges and namely the Chief Justice Firm Fan Swire Judge, & that it shall\n\nWhen in court heled other Chief Justice or other Puisne Judge & that the Vonnage of the Court magh carried in\n\n'I also prefer in Ma Votur thes of section the Bill to the section which be perfore. But W. for this paint In and out a wp 2 the Jamaican the vein Ч Ordinance an embodying\n\n2. Kimstuley. 97/72 Ruth fel 872 Dettely 7/7/20 K July 9/72 2.3.11/7.\n\nSir, 25th June 1872.\n\nI have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 29th ulto enclosing two Draft Ordinances to amend the Constitution and Procedure of the Supreme Court of Hongkong and informing me of the Earl of Kimberley's desire that I should offer any remarks and suggestions which might occur to me upon the proposed measures. I have carefully considered these Draft Ordinances and I now have the honour to submit the following remarks upon them.\n\nThe objects of the proposed Legislation are, as I understand the following: Firstly to substitute for the present Civil Procedure of the Supreme Court of Hongkong a simple code principally founded upon the Thurston Holland ...\n\nmy gmin Secretary, Colonial office", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-161 - Public Offices - 1872.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 290250, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-161 - Public Offices - 1872", "page_number": 414, "title": "CO129-161 - Public Offices - 1872", "content_text": "Land\n\nMis\n\n408\n\nand entirely of the Proposed Code of Civil Procedure for the Supreme Court in its Superior Jurisdiction\n\nThe third Ordinance should abolish the Court of Summary Jurisdiction and transfer all its Business and all its Offices to the Supreme Court and should confer upon it a Summary Jurisdiction in Equity;\n\nThe Clauses necessary for the last mentioned Purpose will be found in a Draft Ordinance which I prepared in Hongkong and which was forwarded to the Secretary of State together with an explanation of the particular reasons for which it was thought Expedient at the time to postpone their introduction - Otherwise they would have been inserted in the Summary Jurisdiction Ordinance No 1 of 1871.\n\nIt will be seen that the measures proposed by Sir R. MacDonnell taken altogether attain very much the same and with the exception", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-161 - Public Offices - 1872.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 290260, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-161 - Public Offices - 1872", "page_number": 424, "title": "CO129-161 - Public Offices - 1872", "content_text": "# 4. Forms to be used.\n\n# 5. General Orders.\n\n# 6. Commencement of Ordinance.\n\nThe above Abstract of the Code as remodelled by me comprises, I believe, every Provision that could be required to a complete system of Procedure.\n\nThe Divisions which are marked \"Indian Code\" are intended to contain the additions and substitutions to which I have previously referred. All the rest is taken from the Ordinance as originally Drafted, the collocation only of the subjects being altered.\n\nI will now proceed to offer some remarks and Suggestions Seriatim on the proposed Code of Civil Procedure as amended in Hongkong.\n\nThe Title and Preamble I think the Title and Preamble should...", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-161 - Public Offices - 1872.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 291345, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-164 - Sir Kennedy - 1873 [7-9]", "page_number": 24, "title": "CO129-164 - Sir Kennedy - 1873 [7-9]", "content_text": "## Jurisdiction Court.\n\nA few days ago, Mr. Ball brought to me the question of quitting the colony for a week's vacation leave. I spoke for him, and handed him **Your Lordship's Despatch** for his perusal, requesting him at the same time to favor me with a written statement of his decision, which I now transmit.\n\nIt will be seen that Mr. Ball makes no difficulty in accepting Your Lordship's suggestions, and his conduct throughout what must have been for him a painful interview was most reasonable and proper.\n\nThe Attorney General having only just completed his draft of the Code of Civil Procedure for the Supreme Court at Hongkong, when I received **Your Lordship's Despatch**, I lost no time in laying it before my Legislative Council, together with the Bill necessary to give it effect, and I anticipate no difficulty in their becoming the law of the Colony at an early date, the forms of the Council and Her Majesty's final approval will permit.\n\nYour Lordship will be able to calculate upon the time when...", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-164 - Sir Kennedy - 1873 [7-9].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 291346, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-164 - Sir Kennedy - 1873 [7-9]", "page_number": 25, "title": "CO129-164 - Sir Kennedy - 1873 [7-9]", "content_text": "23\n\nIt will be necessary for a puisne Judge of the Supreme Court to be appointed to the Colony.\n\nI have the honor to be,\nMy Lord,\nYour Lordship's most obedient humble servant,\nHennessy, Governor.\n\nHongkong,\n21st June, 1873.\n\nThe Governor having this morning permitted me to peruse a Despatch from the Colonial Office bearing date the 10th May, 1873, expressed himself desirous, with his usual courtesy, that I should state my views upon the matter in order that they may be communicated to the Right Honorable Cecil B. Smith,\n\nTwo Copies of the draft of Code of Civil Procedure for the Supreme Court of Hongkong are attached to this Despatch.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-164 - Sir Kennedy - 1873 [7-9].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 291350, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-164 - Sir Kennedy - 1873 [7-9]", "page_number": 29, "title": "CO129-164 - Sir Kennedy - 1873 [7-9]", "content_text": "# DRAFT OF A CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF HONGKONG\n\n## 27\n\n**FOUNDED ON THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND OTHER ACTS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF INDIA, THE RULES OF H. M. SUPREME COURT FOR CHINA AND JAPAN, AND THE FIRST REPORT OF THE ROYAL JUDICATURE COMMISSION.**\n\nPrepared by \n**THE HONORABLE JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE,** \nHer Majesty's Attorney General, \n**FOR THE COLONY OF HONGKONG,** \n\nPrinted by \n**NORONHA & SONS,** \n**PRINTERS TO THE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT.**", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-164 - Sir Kennedy - 1873 [7-9].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 291351, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-164 - Sir Kennedy - 1873 [7-9]", "page_number": 30, "title": "CO129-164 - Sir Kennedy - 1873 [7-9]", "content_text": "# PREFACE\n\n1. The following Draft of a Code of Civil Procedure for the Supreme Court of Hongkong is intended to provide a uniform and more simple system of procedure for the administration of justice in the two principal branches of its jurisdiction, namely, at Common Law and in Equity.\n\n2. The Supreme Court was established by Ordinance No. 6 of 1845, and by Section 4 of that Ordinance, supplemented by Section 3 of Ordinance No. 2 of 1846, it is enacted that the Law of England and the Practice of the English Courts existing on the 5th day of April, 1843, when the Colony received a local legislature, should, subject to their applicability to local circumstances, be in force therein. By Sections 14 and 15 a full legal and equitable jurisdiction is conferred upon the Supreme Court, commensurate with the jurisdiction of the Courts of Common Law and Equity in England.\n\n3. Since the establishment of the Supreme Court upon the same footing as to Practice and Procedure as the English Courts, various Ordinances have been passed introducing into the Colony the provisions of many of the more recent Imperial Statutes for the amendment of the Law. Thus, the Common Law Procedure Acts, 1852 and 1854, are in force in the Colony by virtue of Ordinances No. 6 of 1855 and No. 5 of 1856, and the reforms in the Chancery Procedure of England were also introduced by Ordinance No. 7 of 1856 and other later enactments. It has not been possible, however, to keep pace with Imperial Legislation, and no Rules or Orders of the Supreme Court have been made to regulate the Practice under new Ordinances for the amendment of the Law adapted from Imperial Acts, though portions of the Rules and Orders of the English Courts, in reference to the same subject matter, have from time to time been incorporated into the Colonial Law. It follows, therefore, that although the Procedure of the Supreme Court of Hongkong is substantially similar, from the institution of every suit to its termination, to that of the Courts of Common Law and Equity in England, it is in many respects far more incomplete and imperfect.\n\n4. Notwithstanding the valuable reforms in the Law which Imperial Legislation has achieved during the last twenty years, there can be no doubt that the legal Procedure now in force in the Supreme Court of Hongkong is still intricate, expensive, lengthy, and ill suited to the conditions of the Colony. A vast deal of time and money are spent over arguments arising out of Special Pleading and technicalities of Practice, which are incomprehensible and irritating to the suitor, and which in most cases do not touch the merits of the real question at issue, and Advocates are called upon to argue, and the Judge to decide points of this kind in several branches of the Law, each of which is considered in England sufficiently difficult to constitute a specialty and to induce Members of the Bar to devote themselves exclusively to its study and practice.\n\n5. These very considerations led to the introduction in India of a new Code of Civil Procedure, which after a long trial has fully justified the expectations of the distinguished Jurists by whom it was devised.\n\n6. The Rules of Procedure in force in Her Majesty's Supreme Court for China and Japan, which are in a great measure modelled on the Indian Code, are admirably suited to the transaction of Legal Business in the East, and their clearness and simplicity commend them to the approval of suitors of all nationalities.\n\n7. The first Report of the Royal Judicature Commission, published in 1869, contains most valuable recommendations for the amendment of Legal Procedure and Practice, and it may be convenient in this place to give the following extracts from it, which relate to the most important of the reforms suggested:\n\n## Extracts from the first Report of the Royal Judicature Commission\n\nMuch may be done at the very commencement of a suit to prevent unnecessary litigation, delay, and expense. In a considerable number of suits there is no substantial question as to the right of the plaintiff to, at least, some relief. Frequently the object of the defendant is to gain time; sometimes he only disputes part of the claim, or of the amount.\n\nPage 30 \nPage 31", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-164 - Sir Kennedy - 1873 [7-9].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 291352, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-164 - Sir Kennedy - 1873 [7-9]", "page_number": 31, "title": "CO129-164 - Sir Kennedy - 1873 [7-9]", "content_text": "# \n## iv\n\nIn other cases, such as administration suits, suits to take partnership accounts, suits for specific performance, and suits for foreclosure or redemption, it is often known from the first what order must be made upon the hearing of the cause. In many such suits, notwithstanding improvements recently introduced, the proceedings are still conducted as they are in suits involving a real question as to the plaintiff's right to relief. Considerable delay is thus caused, and useless costs are incurred.\n\nIn all suits, we think, should be commenced by a document to be called a **Writ of Summons**, and these writs of summons should be issued from one office. In all cases in which the plaintiff seeks to recover a money demand, whether founded upon a legal or equitable right, the practice established by the **Common Law Procedure Act, 1852**, should, we think, be adopted and the writ should be specially endorsed with the amount sought to be recovered, and in default of appearance the plaintiff should be allowed to sign judgment for it. Further, in all cases in which a special endorsement has been made on a writ, and the defendant has appeared, the plaintiff should be entitled, on affidavit verifying the cause of action, and swearing that in his belief there is no defence, to take out a summons to show cause why he should not be at liberty to sign judgment; upon which summons such order may be made as the justice of the case may require.\n\nIn like manner, in cases of ordinary account, as in the case of a partnership or executorship, or ordinary trust account, where nothing more is required in the first instance than an account, the writ should be specially endorsed, and in default of appearance, or after appearance, unless the defendant shall satisfy a Judge that there is really some preliminary question to be tried, an order for the account, with all usual directions, should be forthwith made. The Judge should also be empowered at any time, on summary application in Chambers or elsewhere, to direct, if he thinks fit, any necessary inquiries or accounts, notwithstanding it may appear that there is some special or further relief sought, or some special matter to be tried, as to which it may be proper that the suit should proceed in the ordinary manner.\n\nWhen the Defendant enters an appearance, and the suit has to proceed further, the issues between the parties must be ascertained by pleading, or otherwise. The systems of pleading now in use, both at Common Law and in Equity, appear to us to be open to serious objections. Common Law pleadings are apt to be mixed averments of law and fact, varied and multiplied in form, and leading to a great number of useless issues, while the facts which lie behind them are seldom clearly discoverable. Equity pleadings, on the other hand, commonly take the form of a prolix narrative of the facts relied upon by the party, with copies or extracts of deeds, correspondence, and other documents, and other particulars of evidence, set forth at needless length. The best system would be one, which combined the comparative brevity of the simpler forms of Common Law pleading with the principle of stating, intelligibly and not technically, the substance of the facts relied upon as constituting the plaintiff's or the defendant's case, as distinguished from his evidence. It is upon this principle that most modern improvements of pleading have been founded, both in the United States and in our own colonies and Indian possessions, and in the practice recently settled for the Courts of Probate and Divorce.\n\nWe recommend that a short statement constructed on this principle, of the facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of complaint, not on oath, to be called the **Declaration**, should be delivered to the defendant. Thereupon the defendant should deliver to the plaintiff a short statement, not on oath, of the facts constituting the defence, to be called the **Answer**. When new facts are alleged in the **Answer**, the plaintiff should be at liberty to reply. The pleadings should not go beyond the reply, save by special permission of a Judge; but the Judge should, at any stage of the proceedings, permit such amendment in or addition to the pleadings as he may think necessary for determining the real question or controversy between the parties, upon such terms, as to costs and otherwise, as he may think fit.\n\nWe think, that a defendant, having a right or claim against a plaintiff with reference to the subject matter of the suit, or arising out of the same transaction, which at present he cannot enforce without a separate or cross action or suit, should be at liberty to bring forward such right or claim by his **Answer**, which, in that case, should have the same effect as if it were a declaration in a cross action or suit, so as to enable the Court or a Judge to pronounce a final judgment between the parties with respect both to the original and to the cross demand. The same principle might, we think, be extended to the recovery of other demands of the defendant, capable of being set off against the plaintiff's demand, when the balance is in favour of the defendant. But a Judge should be empowered, on application by the plaintiff before trial, to refuse permission to allow such cross right or claim to be brought forward, if he shall be of opinion that it cannot conveniently be adjudicated upon in the case to be tried.\n\nWe think also, that the Court should have power to direct that any person not originally a party to the suit, but who may have such an interest in the subject matter thereof as to make his presence necessary or expedient to enable the Court to do complete justice, should be summoned to attend the further proceedings and be bound thereby; and that, with this view, the plaintiff should be at liberty to make any person, against whom he may conceive himself to be entitled to relief, a party defendant to the suit. And, on the other hand, that, where the defendant is or claims to be entitled to contribution or to indemnity or other relief over against any other person or persons, or where from any other cause it shall appear to the Court, fit that a question in the suit should be determined, not only as between the plaintiff and defendant, but as between the defendant and any other person, the Court should have power to make such order as may be proper for the purpose of having the question so determined.\n\n## 8\nThe Draft of a Code for the Supreme Court of Hongkong which I have prepared consists of One hundred Sections, divided into Five Parts and Twenty Chapters. It deals in consecutive order with the proceedings in a suit from its institution to the final decree, and is mainly compiled from Imperial Acts and Local Ordinances, the Code of Civil Procedure of India, the Rules of Her Majesty's Supreme Court for China and Japan, and the Report of the Royal Judicature Commission. It will be observed that in the margin of each Section there is a reference to the Act, Ordinance, Code, or Rule, from which it is adopted, so that any detailed explanation of its Provisions is unnecessary.\n\n## 9\nIn accordance with one of the recommendations of the Royal Judicature Commission, the Code provides that all Suits shall be commenced by **Writ of Summons**, and the practice of issuing Writs specially endorsed has been retained and extended to many cases in which this Summary Remedy has not hitherto been applied.\n\n## 10\nPart IV relates to special suits, and under the head of **Foreign Attachment**, the Provisions of `Ordinance No. 2 of 1855`, have been entirely remodelled, and many of its defects have been remedied. It also provides a simple Procedure for suits against the Government, suits of **Mandamus**, suits on **Bills of Exchange** and suits `in forma pauperis`.\n\n## 11\n`Section XCIX` provides for the amendment of the Code by a resolution of the Legislative Council whenever it may be deemed expedient, without having recourse to the passing of a new Ordinance for that purpose; and although by `Section IV`, all the Imperial Acts and Local Ordinances relating to Procedure now in force in the Colony are suspended, power is reserved to the Court to apply any of those enactments in the event of any case arising, for which no special provision may have been made; and the Code will, I trust, be found to comprise nearly all the reforms and improvements which have been suggested by recent Legislation and discussion, both in England and in India, on the subject of Legal Procedure.\n\n## V\n\n## 12\nThe Appendix contains two additional Draft Ordinances. The first provides for the abolition of the **Court of Summary Jurisdiction** and confers upon the Supreme Court a Summary Jurisdiction at Law and in Equity. The second provides for the reconstitution of the Supreme Court and the appointment of a **Puisne Judge**. Those two Ordinances, if approved of and adopted, should be passed simultaneously with the Code, in order that the three measures may be brought into force `uno flatu`.\n\nHongkong, June, 1878.\n\n**JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE, Attorney General**.\n\n## 23", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-164 - Sir Kennedy - 1873 [7-9].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 291358, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-164 - Sir Kennedy - 1873 [7-9]", "page_number": 37, "title": "CO129-164 - Sir Kennedy - 1873 [7-9]", "content_text": "# ABBREVIATIONS\n\n1. C.-Indian Code of Civil Procedure, (Act VIII of 1859.)\n\nI. A.-Indian Act, No. of\n\nS. R.--Shanghai Rules, (Rules of H. M. Supreme Court for China and Japan.)\n\nI. E. A.-Indian Evidence Act, No. 1 of 1872.\n\nR. H. T.-Regulæ Generales of Hilary Term, 1853.\n\nR. J. C.-Report of the Royal Judicature Commission.\n\nC. L. P. A.-The Common Law Procedure Act.\n\nG. O. H. K.-General Orders of the Supreme Court of Hongkong.\n\nO. G. G. I--Order of the Governor General of India in Council.\n\nR. H. C. B.-Rules of the High Court of Bengal, Original Jurisdiction.\n\n35\n\n## INTRODUCTION\n\nAn Ordinance enacted by the Governor of Hongkong, with the Advice of the Legislative Council thereof, to simplify and assimilate the Procedure and Practice of the Supreme Court in its Common Law and Equity Jurisdictions and to amend and consolidate the Provisions of the Law relating thereto.\n\nR. J. C. 10.\n\nArrowsmith, 2; Chandler, 27 L.T. (N.S.) 242.\n\n[1873.]\n\nWHEREAS it is expedient to simplify and assimilate the Procedure and Practice of the Supreme Court in its Common Law and Equity jurisdictions and to amend and consolidate the Provisions of the Law relating thereto: Be it enacted by the Governor of Hongkong, with the advice of the Legislative Council thereof, as follows:\n\n## THE HONGKONG CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE\n\nI. This Ordinance may be cited for all purposes as \"The Hongkong Code of Civil Procedure.\"\n\nII. The following terms and expressions shall be understood as hereinafter defined or explained, unless there be something in the subject or context repugnant to such definition or explanation; that is to say:\n\n- \"Court\" shall mean the Supreme Court and shall include the Chief Justice or other Judge of the Supreme Court sitting in Court or in Chambers.\n- \"Registrar\" shall mean the Registrar of the Supreme Court.\n- \"Code\" shall mean the Code of Civil Procedure introduced by this Ordinance.\n- \"Cause of Action\" in suits on contracts, or arising thereout, shall mean the breach of contract complained of and not necessarily the whole cause of action.\n\nIII. Nothing in this Ordinance contained shall be deemed:\n\n(1.) To affect the Rights, Privileges, or Remedies of the Crown.\n\n(2.) To affect any Provisions relating to the jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court contained in the Order of Her Majesty the Queen in Council of the 9th day of March, 1865, for the Government of Her Majesty's subjects in China and Japan, nor the existing jurisdiction or powers of the Supreme Court;\n\n(3.) To affect the Procedure and Practice of the Vice-Admiralty Court, or of the Courts of Probate and Bankruptcy;\n\n(4.) To affect any suit, action, or other proceeding instituted at the time of the commencement of this Ordinance:\n\nProvided always that in case the parties to any such last mentioned suit, action, or other proceeding shall desire to carry on and continue the same, so far as may be practicable under the Provisions of this Code, the Court may, in its discretion, permit them so to do upon such terms and conditions, as it may think reasonable.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-164 - Sir Kennedy - 1873 [7-9].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 291388, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-164 - Sir Kennedy - 1873 [7-9]", "page_number": 67, "title": "CO129-164 - Sir Kennedy - 1873 [7-9]", "content_text": "# (61)\n\n(1)\n\nAn Ordinance enacted by the Governor of Hongkong, with the Advice of the Legislative Council thereof, to abolish the Court of Summary Jurisdiction and to confer upon the Supreme Court a Summary Jurisdiction at Law and in Equity.\n\n[1873]\n\n## Title\n\nWHEREAS it is expedient to abolish the Court of Summary Jurisdiction and to confer upon the Supreme Court a Summary Jurisdiction at Law and in Equity: Be it enacted by the Governor of Hongkong, with the Advice of the Legislative Council thereof, as follows:-\n\n## Preamble\n\nI. This Ordinance may be cited as **\"The Supreme Court Summary Jurisdiction Ordinance.\"**\n\n## Short Title\n\nII. The following Terms and Expressions shall be understood as hereinafter defined or explained, unless there be something in the Subject or Context repugnant to such Definition or Explanation; that is to say:-\n\n| Term | Definition |\n| --- | --- |\n| \"Court\" | shall mean the Supreme Court and shall include the Chief Justice or the Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court sitting in Court or in Chambers, under this Ordinance. |\n| \"Full Court\" | shall mean the Chief Justice and Puisne Judge sitting together for the Purposes of Appeal. |\n| \"The Court of Summary Jurisdiction\" | shall mean the Court established by Ordinance No. 7 of 1862. |\n| \"The Judge\" | shall mean the Presiding Judge. |\n| \"Code of Civil Procedure\" | shall mean the Code of Civil Procedure introduced by Ordinance No. of 187... |\n| \"Principal Register\" | shall mean the Register of Suits established under the Code of Civil Procedure. |\n| \"Register of Summary Suits\" | shall mean the Register of Suits established under this Ordinance. |\n| \"Original Jurisdiction\" | shall mean the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on the Trial of Causes under the Code of Civil Procedure. |\n| \"Registrar\" | shall mean the Registrar of the Supreme Court. |\n| \"Clerk of the Court\" | shall mean the Officer appointed to perform the Duties of Clerk of the Supreme Court in its Summary Jurisdiction. |\n| \"Bailiff\" | shall mean the Officer appointed to execute the Process of the Supreme Court in its Summary Jurisdiction. |\n\n## Interpretation Clause\n\nIII. The Court of Summary Jurisdiction is hereby abolished, and Ordinances No. 7 of 1862, and No. 1 of 1871, and all Rules and Orders of the said Court made thereunder are hereby repealed, except for the Purpose of completing any Case or winding up any Business or Matter whatever pending in the said Court at the Time of the Passing of this Ordinance.\n\n## Abolition of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction and Repeal of Ordinances and Rules\n\nIV. From and after the Commencement of this Ordinance, it shall be lawful for the Supreme Court to exercise a Summary Jurisdiction at Law and in Equity in the Suits or Matters hereinafter mentioned; and in all Cases in which by any Ordinance of the Colony Proceedings are directed to be instituted in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, the same may be instituted in the Supreme Court under the Provisions of this Ordinance.\n\n## Summary Jurisdiction conferred on Supreme Court\n\nV. The Officers of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction shall be transferred to, and become Officers of the Supreme Court, and as such, they shall respectively receive Salaries of an Amount equal to or not less than the Salaries now attached to their respective Offices in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction; and they shall perform such Duties in the Supreme Court as the Chief Justice shall prescribe.\n\n## Transfer of Officers\n\nVI. Except in the Case of the Judge of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, no Claims in respect of Compensation for Abolition of Office under this Ordinance shall be allowed.\n\n## Claims for Compensation for Abolition of Office\n\nVII. The Seal of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction and all the Records thereof shall be deposited for Custody in the Supreme Court.\n\n## Custody of Seal and Records\n\n65", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-164 - Sir Kennedy - 1873 [7-9].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 291390, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-164 - Sir Kennedy - 1873 [7-9]", "page_number": 69, "title": "CO129-164 - Sir Kennedy - 1873 [7-9]", "content_text": "# Ordinance Text\n\n## Jurisdiction and Procedure\n\n1 of 1871, s. 29. \n7 of 1862, a. 9. \nIbid, s. 31. \n1 of 1871, s. 5 (64)\n\n2. In all Suits for the Execution of Trusts in which the Trust Estate or Fund shall not exceed in Amount or Value the Sum of One Thousand Dollars.\n\n3. In all Suits for Foreclosure or Redemption, or for enforcing any Charge or Lien, where the Mortgage, Charge, or Lien shall not exceed in Amount the Sum of One Thousand Dollars.\n\n4. In all Suits for specific Performance of or for the Reforming, Delivering up, or Cancelling of any Agreement for the Sale, Purchase, or Lease of any Property where in the Case of a Sale or Purchase, the Purchase Money, or in Case of a Lease, the Value of the Property shall not exceed the Sum of One Thousand Dollars.\n\n5. In all Suits for the Dissolution or Winding-up of any Partnership in which the whole Property, Stock, and Credits of such Partnership shall not exceed in Amount or Value the Sum of One Thousand Dollars.\n\n6. In all Proceedings for Orders in the Nature of Injunctions, where the same are requisite for granting Relief in any Matter in which Equitable Jurisdiction is given to the Court by this Ordinance.\n\n## Summary Procedure and Practice\n\n### XXIII. The Registrar of the Supreme Court shall keep a Book Register of Civil Suits\nThe Registrar of the Supreme Court shall keep a Book Register called the \"Register of Civil Suits, (Summary Jurisdiction,)\" which shall be in the Form contained in the Schedule to this Ordinance, or as near thereto as Circumstances permit, and shall contain the Entries specified in the said Form, and every Suit or Proceeding however instituted under the Provisions of this Ordinance, shall be numbered in each Year according to the Order in which the same shall be commenced.\n\n### XXIV. Suits to be commenced by Writ of Summons\nAll Suits under this Ordinance shall be commenced by a Writ of Summons in the same Manner and Form as is prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure for Suits instituted thereunder, except that every such Writ shall be entitled \"In the Supreme Court of Hongkong, (Summary Jurisdiction.)\"\n\n### XXV. Summary Hearing\nIt shall not be necessary for the Defendant to enter an Appearance to the said Writ, but after Service thereof the Suit shall be heard and determined in a Summary Way without Pleadings: Provided always that the Judge may order either Party to file within such Time as he shall direct, further or better Particulars in Writing of his Claim or Defence, and the Defendant may, by leave of the Court, set up any Defence on Equitable Grounds.\n\n### XXVI. The Judge may frame Issues\nThe Judge may in any Proceeding before the Court frame Issues of Law and Fact for the better Trial and Determination of the Cause.\n\n### XXVII. Power to re-open Case\nIt shall be lawful for the Judge upon such Grounds as he shall, in his Discretion, think sufficient, to re-open any Case determined by him, within One Month of such Determination, (except where either Party shall have appealed and the Parties shall not agree to the Withdrawal of the Appeal), and to re-hear the Case wholly or in part, and to take fresh Evidence, and to reverse, vary, or confirm his previous Decision.\n\n### XXVIII. Notice of Action and Special Defence\nExcept by Consent or Leave of the Court, no Cause or Matter within the Summary Jurisdiction of the Court shall be set down for hearing before at least Two clear Days from the Service of the Summons and except by Consent or by Leave of the Court, it shall not be competent to the Defendant to enter into any Equitable Defence or into any Special Defence such as \"Set off,\" \"Illegality,\" \"Want of Consideration or the \"Statute of Limitations,\" unless at least Twelve Hours' written Notice thereof has been first given to the Plaintiff or his Attorney.\n\n### XXIX. Proceedings not to be set aside for Want of Form\nNo Action or Complaint or other Proceeding under the Summary Jurisdiction given by this Ordinance, shall be treated or considered as Invalid or Subject to be set aside, on Account of any verbal or technical Error; but all Errors and Mistakes not having a tendency to mislead the opposite Party, shall and may in all cases be amended or altered by the Court; and unless the Court shall otherwise direct, all Applications to the Court or in Chambers which may be necessary in the Course of any Suit or Proceeding may be made verbally and without any preliminary Formality.\n\n### XXX. Appearance of Parties\nIn every Cause or Matter pending before the Court, in Case it shall be proved to the Satisfaction of the Court, that any Plaintiff or Defendant who may not be represented by Attorney or Counsel is prevented by some good or sufficient Cause from attending the Court in Person, the Court may, in its Discretion, permit any Relative, Friend, or Agent of such Plaintiff or Defendant, who shall satisfy the Court that he has Authority in that behalf, to appear for such Plaintiff or Defendant.\n\n7 of 1862, s. 23. \nIbid, s. 25. \nIbid, s. 27. \nIbid, s. 24. \nSee Shanghai (65)\n\n### XXXI. Juries of Three\nThe Court may, in its Discretion, on the Application of either Party, or of its own Motion, order that a Common or Special Jury be empanelled for the Trial of any Cause under this Ordinance. In every such Case the Jury empanelled shall consist of Three Persons only but save as aforesaid, all the Provisions of the Law in force in the Colony for the Time being relating to Juries in the Supreme Court, except so far as the same may provide for the Remuneration of Special Jurors, shall apply to Juries of Three Persons empanelled under this Ordinance.\n\n### XXXII. Compensation to Parties, Witnesses, and Jurors\nThe Court may allow such reasonable Sum or Sums of Money for the Attendance and Loss of Time of Parties, Witnesses, and Jurors as it shall think fit.\n\n### XXXIII. Bailiff\nThe Court shall appoint one or more Bailiffs who shall execute all Process of the Court in its Summary Jurisdiction, and the Provisions of the Sheriff's Ordinance, 1873, shall apply to every such Bailiff as if he had been expressly included therein.\n\n### XXXIV. Execution\nIn the Execution of Orders or Decrees the Bailiff shall, in the first Instance, if practicable, levy on the Goods, Chattels, and Effects of the Defendant, and in the Event of his not being able to find sufficient Goods, Chattels, or Effects of the Defendant and the Defendant failing to point out to his Notice any Property whereon to levy, the Bailiff shall enforce the Order or Decree of the Court by the personal Arrest and Imprisonment of the Defendant as hereinafter is mentioned.\n\n### XXXV. Imprisonment by Process of Court not to exceed Six Months\nEvery Defendant who shall be arrested and taken in Execution under the Process of the Court in its Summary Jurisdiction shall be imprisoned for a Space of Time not exceeding Six Months, unless before the Expiration thereof, the Order or Decree of the said Court shall have been satisfied: Provided that in Case any Defendant shall be discharged from Prison without having paid the Debt and Costs for which he had been imprisoned, it shall be lawful for the Complainant, at any Time within Three Years after such Order or Decree to take out Fresh Execution against any Estate or Effects which such Defendant may have become possessed of, or entitled to, until such Order or Decree shall be fully satisfied.\n\n### XXXVI. Execution not to prejudice Landlords\nNo Execution awarded against the Goods of any Party shall extend to, or be construed to extend to deprive any Landlord of the Power vested in such Landlord by an Act passed in the Eighth Year of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Anne, intituled \"An Act for the better Security of Rents and to prevent Frauds committed by Tenants,\" of recovering One Year's Rent by Virtue of and in Pursuance of the said Act.\n\n### XXXVII. Interpleader\nIf any Claim shall be made to, or in respect of any Goods or Chattels taken in Execution under the Process of Court, or in respect of the Proceeds or Value thereof, by any Landlord for Rent, or by any Person not being the Party against whom such Process has issued, it shall be lawful for the Clerk of the Court, upon Application of the Officer charged with the Execution of such Process, as well before as after any Action brought against such Officer, to issue a Summons calling before the said Court as well the Party issuing such Process as the Party making such Claim, and thereupon the Court shall adjudicate upon such Claim and make such Order between the Parties in respect thereof, and of the Costs of the Proceedings, as to him shall seem Fit, and such Order shall be enforced in like Manner as any Order made in any Action under this Ordinance.\n\n## The Code of Civil Procedure\n\n### XXXVIII. Application of the Code generally\nThe Provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall be applied mutatis mutandis to Suits instituted under this Ordinance so far as the same can be made applicable thereto, unless the Court shall in any Case for the avoiding of Delay or in Furtherance of substantial Justice think Fit otherwise to direct and except where the said Provisions may conflict or be inconsistent with any special Provisions contained in this Ordinance.\n\n### XXXIX. Special Application of Code\nThe Provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall, subject as aforesaid, apply particularly as to the Matters following:-\n- Foreign Attachment\n- Interim Attachment\n- Arrest of Absconding Defendants\n- The Postponement or Adjournment of Hearing\n- The taking of Evidence\n- Reference of Matters of Account\n- Specific Delivery of Chattels\n- Arbitration\n- The Allowance of Costs\n- The Satisfaction of Judgment by Instalments\n- The Maintenance of Prisoners for Debt\n- The Power to fix and vary the Scale of Fees of Court and of Costs of Attorney and Counsel\n- The Making of Rules or Orders\n\n67", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-164 - Sir Kennedy - 1873 [7-9].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 292095, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-165 - Sir Kennedy - 1873 [10-12]", "page_number": 104, "title": "CO129-165 - Sir Kennedy - 1873 [10-12]", "content_text": "relating to the Process, Practice, and Mode of Pleading in the Supreme Court of the Colony and to provide a Uniform Code of procedure at Common Law and Equity.\n\n**\"An Ordinance, enacted by the Governor of Hongkong, with the Advice of the Legislative Council thereof, to abolish the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and to confer upon the Supreme Court a Summary Jurisdiction, at Law and in Equity\"**\n\nThe Ordinance for the Reconstitution of the Supreme Court... #12 of 1878, #13 of 1873.\n\nThe Code of Civil Procedure, and the Ordinance for the abolition of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, passed the Legislative Council on the 30th ult., and were brought into operation on the 15th instant.\n\nThese Ordinances effect very important changes in the Administration of Justice in the Colony, and were prepared by me under Special Instructions with which I was honored by the Secretary of State at the time of my last visit to England, in 1871-1872. Their provisions are", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-165 - Sir Kennedy - 1873 [10-12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 296420, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-171 - Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [7-11] -- Sir Kennedy - 1875 [12]", "page_number": 151, "title": "CO129-171 - Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [7-11] -- Sir Kennedy - 1875 [12]", "content_text": "TAKE NOTICE that if you fail to enter an appearance to the Suit within the time hereinbefore specified, the Court may give leave to the Plaintiff to proceed therein ex parte to Judgment and Execution.\n\nWITNESS The Honorable John Smale, Chief Justice of our said Court at Hongkong, this Fourteenth day of October A.D. 1873. Sealed by (signed) J. S. Auffam, Deputy Registrar.\n\nN.B.--This Writ is to be served within Six Calendar Months from the date thereof and afterwards, unless renewed under Section IX (Para. 4) of \"The Hongkong Code of Civil Procedure.\"\n\nSUBJECT MATTER OF THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM AND RELIEF SOUGHT FOR.\n\nThe subject matter of the Plaintiff's claim is as follows:-\n\nPurchase money of Steamship \"Commodore\", amount paid for wages of Officers and crew of the said steam ship and interest thereon per account stated\n\nBalance due for goods sold and delivered to Defendant by Plaintiff for money advanced by plaintiff for the use of Defendant, for moneys due to the Plaintiff for carriage of goods and interest per account stated.\n\nAnd the Relief sought for is Payment.\n\n$83,885.13\n\n$75,907.06\n\n$159,792.19", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-171 - Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [7-11] -- Sir Kennedy - 1875 [12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 296421, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-171 - Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [7-11] -- Sir Kennedy - 1875 [12]", "page_number": 152, "title": "CO129-171 - Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [7-11] -- Sir Kennedy - 1875 [12]", "content_text": "77\n\nIN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONGKONG.\n\nThis Writ was served by on the within named on the day of 187\n\nSuit No.\n\nIN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONGKONG.\n\nFOREIGN ATTACHMENT.\n\nWRIT OF SUMMONS.\n\nLandstein PLAINTIFF\n\nV Su Duc. King of Annam sued in his private capacity DEFENDANT\n\nSUIT No.\n\nVICTORIA, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland QUEEN, Defender of the Faith.\n\nTo the Sheriff and Deputy Sheriffs of our Colony of Hongkong, Greeting: We command you forthwith to attach all the Property moveable or immoveable of the Defendant in the above Suit, which shall be found within our said Colony of Hongkong.\n\nWITNESS The Honorable John Imale, Chief Justice of our said Court at Hongkong, the th day of October A.D. 1873.\n\n14 (L.S.) Sealed by (signed) I. S. Auffam Deputy Registrar\n\nThis Writ is to be returned into the Registrar's Office within 8 days after the Service thereof, with a Memorandum indorsed thereon of the Date and Mode of Service.\n\nCode, Sec. X.\n\nN.B. This Writ is for service within Jurisdiction.\n\nEd: Sharp Plaintiff's Attorney.\n\nHONGKONG\n\nEXTRACT From \"The Hongkong Code of Civil Procedure,\" Part IV c. 13.\n\nLXXXII-Para. 11. \"From the Time of the Service upon the Garnishee of a Writ of Foreign Attachment, all Property whatsoever, within the Jurisdiction other than Lands, or any Interest therein, to which the Defendant mentioned in such Writ is then beneficially entitled, whether solely or jointly with others and which is in the Custody or under the Control of the Garnishee, and all Debts then due or accruing due by the Garnishee to the Defendant, shall, to the Extent of the Defendant's Interest therein, and subject to Crown Debts and to any bona fide prior Title thereto, or Lien or Charge thereon, and to the Rights and Powers of prior Incumbrancers, be respectively attached in the Hands of such Garnishee, to satisfy the Claim of the Plaintiff.\"\n\nLXXXII-Para. 18. \"Any Garnishee who shall without Leave or Order of the Court, at any Time after the Service of the Writ and before the Attachment shall be dissolved, knowingly and wilfully part with the Custody or Control of any Property attached in his Hands, or remove the same out of the Jurisdiction of the Court, or sell or dispose of the same, or pay any Debt due by him to the Defendant excepting only to or to the Use of the Plaintiff, shall pay such Damages to the Plaintiff as the Court shall award and he shall be deemed guilty of Contempt of Court: Provided that the Court shall not award a larger Amount of Damages than it is competent to decree in an Action for Damages and such Award shall bar any Suit for Damages in respect of such Attachment.\"\n\n78\n\n149", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-171 - Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [7-11] -- Sir Kennedy - 1875 [12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 296461, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-171 - Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [7-11] -- Sir Kennedy - 1875 [12]", "page_number": 191, "title": "CO129-171 - Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [7-11] -- Sir Kennedy - 1875 [12]", "content_text": "From whom To whom \n\nDate \n\n188 \n\nSubject \n\nattached by the Supreme Court, released.\n\n5. Act Attorney General Act & Col. sec. 18ct 1998 Alates that the Executive cannot \n\nPage 1765-18.\n\n1973.\n\nre as rey\n\ninterfere.\n\n- requested, and that if the Annamere Yost wishes the machinery of the bang tee released, a means for doing so is provided by the code of Civil Procedure.\n\ncode of\n\nChief Justice\n\nJustice 22 March 1875 Forwards a letter (Mxy) received by\n\nHis Excellency from the Minister\n\nPage 19 to 20\n\n6. Acts Col. Sec\n\n7.\n\nMinister of Foreign Affairs - Annam\n\nPage 21 to 28.\n\n8. Governor\n\n[Sir A. E. Kennedy]\n\nGovernor\n\nMercantile Marine - Annam\n\nno date complains that the steamer which was purchased a year ago by an Annamite Official and for the payment of which, also of a private law, two Annamite Officials went as security;\n\naltogether\n\nwas\n\na private affair and had nothing to do with the Annamese Govt whose\n\nMan Aivan the Dans Me has\n\nnevertheless been arrested for non-payment of this private debt\n\nAct Col: Sec 20th March 1874 Sends acknowledgment of the above.\n\nPage 29.\n\nletter / Rey) and supports the m appointment on the part of the Annamese Govt of a Consular agent at Hongkong to guard against disposition\n\nand against Annamite...", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-171 - Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [7-11] -- Sir Kennedy - 1875 [12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 302022, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-181 - Governor Hennessy - 1878 [1-8]", "page_number": 183, "title": "CO129-181 - Governor Hennessy - 1878 [1-8]", "content_text": "# THE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 16TH FEBRUARY, 1878.\n\n## METEOROLOGICAL REGISTER AT THE UNDERMENTIONED STATIONS.\n\n| Date | Baro- Meter | Thermometer | Wind Direction | Force | Weather |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |\n| 8th February | 30.28 | 56.5 | NNE | 2 | ... |\n| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |\n\n## Description of Wind\n\n* Just sufficient to give steerage way\n* Gentle Breeze\n* Strong Breeze\n* Moderate Gale\n* Whole Gale\n\n## NOTICE\n\n**THE next Criminal Sessions of the Supreme Court will be held on Monday, the Eighteenth day of February, a.n. 1878, at Ten o'clock in the forenoon.**\n\nBy Order,\nC. B. PLUNKET, Registrar.\n\n## SUPREME COURT OF HONGKONG\n\n* Until further notice, the Court will sit in its Summary Jurisdiction, on every Tuesday, at Ten o'clock in the forenoon.\n* Until further notice, the Court will sit in its Original Jurisdiction on Mondays and Thursdays.\n\nBy Order,\nC. B. PLUNKET, Registrar.\n\n## IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONGKONG\n\n### Foreign Attachments\n\n#### SUMMARY JURISDICTION\n\n* Suit No. 168: Plaintiff - LEONG A SOO, Defendant - NG KEW\n* Suit No. 173: Plaintiff - YIP TAI NOAN, Defendant - NG KEW\n\n#### ORIGINAL JURISDICTION\n\n* Suit No. 5: Plaintiff - HO A TOW, Defendant - NG KAW\n* Suit No. 7: Plaintiff - LO A NGAN, Defendant - NG A KEW\n* Suit No. 8: Plaintiff - LEUNG A WOON, Defendant - NG A KEW\n\nNOTICE is hereby given that Writs of Foreign Attachments returnable on the 27th day of February instant, against all the Property moveable or immoveable of the above-named Defendant within the Colony, has been issued in each of the above Suits pursuant to the Provisions of Section LXXXII of \"The Hongkong Code of Civil Procedure.\"\n\nDated the 14th day of February, A.D. 1878.\nSHARP, TOLLER & JOHNSON, Solicitors for the several Plaintiffs, Supreme Court House, Hongkong.\n\n## NOTICE\n\nWHEREAS pursuant to the Provisions of Ordinance No. 14 of 1862, the following Petition to His Excellency the Governor in Council for Letters Patent for the Exclusive Right to use within this Colony and its Dependencies, the Invention hereinafter mentioned, has, together with the Specifications and Declarations required by the said Ordinance, been filed in the Office of the Colonial Secretary...\n\nNotice is hereby given, that His Excellency the Governor has appointed MONDAY, the 18th day of February, 1878, at noon, for a Sitting of the Executive Council...\n\nDated at Victoria, Hongkong, this 9th day of February, 1878.\nWM. H. BRERETON, Solicitor for the Petitioner, 29, Queen's Road, Hongkong.\n\n## IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONGKONG IN BANKRUPTCY\n\nKOONG CHEONG, of `Road Central`, Victoria, in the Colony of Hongkong, Trader in European goods...\n\nA public sitting for the said Bankrupt to pass his last examination, and to make application for his order of discharge, will be held before the Honourable Sir JOHN SMALE, Knight, Chief Justice...\n\nDated the 9th day of February, 1878.\nSHARP, TOLLER & JOHNSON, Solicitors in the Bankruptcy.\n\n## THE HONGKONG FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED\n\n**NOTICE TO SHAREHOLDERS**\n\nTHE NINTH ORDINARY ANNUAL MEETING of the above Company will be held at the Office of the Company, No. 7, Queen's Road, on Monday, the 18th February next, at Three o'clock in the afternoon...\n\nJARDINE, MATHESON & Co., General Managers, Hongkong Fire Insurance Company, Limited.\nHongkong, January 26th, 1878.\n\n## NOTICE\n\nMR. H. F. MEYERINK has been admitted a PARTNER in our firm from this date.\nMEYER & Co.\nHongkong, 1st January, 1878.\n\n## \"THE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE\"\n\nSubscription: Per Annum, Payable in advance, $12.00. Extra copies, each, $0.50.\nTerms of Advertising: For 5 Lines and under, $1.00. Each Additional line, $0.20.\n\nPrinted and Published by NORONHA & SONS, Printers to the Hongkong Government, Oswald's Terrace, Wellington Street, Hongkong.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-181 - Governor Hennessy - 1878 [1-8].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 303450, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-184 - Governor Hennessy - 1879 [1-5]", "page_number": 42, "title": "CO129-184 - Governor Hennessy - 1879 [1-5]", "content_text": "# THE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 22ND JANUARY, 1879.\n\n40 \n25 \n\nAnd Whereas it is desirable to make some provisions with respect to the regulating the quantity of opium manufactured and the transfer of the stocks of raw and prepared opium in the possession of the person holding such exclusive privilege and his licensees at or near the end of his term of exclusive privilege to the next holder of the same, and to make other amendments in the said recited Ordinance: \n\nBe it enacted by the Governor of Hongkong, with the advice of the Legislative Council thereof, as follows:---\n\n## I. \nThe term “Revenue Officer\" shall mean the person appointed by the Governor under section XI of this Ordinance, and for the purposes of this Ordinance, any boiled or prepared opium, or utensils or vessels used for preparing the same shall be deemed to be in possession of any person if he knowingly have them in actual possession, custody, or control by himself or by any other person.\n\n## II. \nNo person holding such exclusive privilege as aforesaid, nor any licensee under such person as aforesaid, shall sell or dispose of any boiled or prepared opium at or near the end of the term for which such person holds such exclusive privilege or at any time during the term for which such person holds such exclusive privilege so as in either case to authorize the use of such boiled or prepared opium at any time after 12 o'clock at noon of the third day after the commencement of the term of the new holder of the exclusive privilege, under a penalty not exceeding one thousand dollars.\n\n## III. \nEvery holder of such exclusive privilege shall, one month before the end of his term of exclusive privilege expires, give public notice in the form provided by the schedule 4 hereto that the said privilege is to expire on the day to be named and that no boiled or prepared opium purchased from such holder of such exclusive privilege or from any licensee of such holder can be used after such time without the consent of the new holder. Such notice shall be printed in English and Chinese and the holder of the exclusive privilege shall supply copies thereof to all persons licensed by him under the said recited Ordinance: and every person so licensed shall exhibit the notice in his place of sale in a conspicuous position so as to be plainly visible to every person entering such place of sale. Any person offending against any of the provisions of this section shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding one hundred dollars.\n\n## IV. \nThe holder of the exclusive privilege and his licensees shall, on the expiration of his term, hand over to the incoming holder, and the incoming holder shall take over from the outgoing holder all his stock of raw, boiled and prepared opium at such prices as may be settled subject to the proviso hereinafter contained for arbitration in case of difference.\n\n## V. \nNeither the holder of the exclusive privilege nor his licensees shall, at or near the end of his term, manufacture more than the usual quantity of boiled or prepared opium, or sell any boiled or prepared opium at less than the average current prices of the day, or in greater quantities than usual at the time of the year, and shall not sell, export, or otherwise make away with or dispose of any of his stock of boiled or prepared opium, but shall make over to the new holder of the said exclusive privilege the full and complete stock of raw or boiled and prepared opium at the marketable value thereof and in the event of any difference arising as to quantities of boiled and prepared opium manufactured or sold during the last three months of the term and the price of the same and of the nature and quantity of the raw or boiled or prepared opium so to be purchased or made over and the prices thereof, such difference shall be determined by three arbitrators, one to be appointed by the new holder of the exclusive privilege, one by the person whose exclusive privilege has expired or is about to expire, and one by the Governor, and the award of such arbitrators or a majority of them shall be final, and the arbitration or such other settlement shall be held at such time at or before or after the end of the term of the outgoing holder of the exclusive privilege as to the Governor may seem reasonable, and any award made may be filed in Court pursuant to the provisions of `The Hongkong Code of Civil Procedure`.\n\n## VI. \nSection VIII of the said recited Ordinance shall be amended by the insertion therein and the addition thereto of the following words:--After the word \"any\" in the third line of the said section the words \"boiled or\" and after the word \"opium\" in the fourth line thereof the words \"not purchased from the holder of the existing privilege for the time being or his licensee the burthen of proof of which purchase shall lie upon any person alleging that he so purchased the same. Provided always that no person who may have purchased any boiled or prepared opium from the outgoing holder of the exclusive privilege or from any licensee of such outgoing holder shall be liable to be convicted for having in his possession such boiled or prepared opium not exceeding three taels weight at any time before noon on the third day after the commencement of the new holder's privilege.\n\n## VII. \nAll boiled or prepared opium offered or exposed for sale or retail by any unauthorised person and all boiled or prepared opium found in the possession or custody or control of any unauthorised person or in any unauthorised place, except as in the last section mentioned, and any utensils or vessels which have been used or which are manifestly intended to be used in boiling or preparing opium by any unauthorised person or in any unauthorised place, may be seized by a Police or Excise Officer, and shall be forfeited and may be by a Magistrate delivered and adjudged to the holder of the exclusive privilege for the time being, and any unauthorised person in whose possession any such boiled or prepared opium or utensils or vessels are found may be apprehended and taken before a Magistrate by any Police or Excise Officer.\n\n## VIII. \nWhenever boiled or prepared opium is so seized as last aforesaid and any such utensils or vessels are also seized as aforesaid, the Police or Excise Officer seizing the same may also seize any raw opium that may be found in the custody or control of such unauthorised person or in such unauthorised place and such raw opium shall be subject to the order of the Magistrate before whom the case is brought.\n\n## IX. \nWhenever from any other cause there is reasonable ground to believe that boiled or prepared opium is manufactured by any unauthorised person or in any unauthorised place within this Colony it shall be lawful for a Police or Excise Officer to seize any raw opium found in the possession of such unauthorised person or in such unauthorised place.\n\n24 THE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 22ND JANUARY, 1879.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-184 - Governor Hennessy - 1879 [1-5].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 303456, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-184 - Governor Hennessy - 1879 [1-5]", "page_number": 48, "title": "CO129-184 - Governor Hennessy - 1879 [1-5]", "content_text": "# THE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 8th JANUARY, 1879.\n\nAnd Whereas it is by the said Ordinance also enacted that the person, if any, actually holding any such privilege is thereby empowered to grant licences to all proper persons authorising them to boil and prepare opium and to sell and retail opium so boiled and prepared:\n\nAnd Whereas it is desirable to make some provisions with respect to regulating the quantity of opium manufactured and the transfer of the stocks of raw and prepared opium in the possession of the person holding such exclusive privilege and his licensees at or near the end of his term of exclusive privilege to the next holder of the same, and to make other amendments in the said recited Ordinance:\n\nBe it enacted by the Governor of Hongkong, with the advice of the Legislative Council thereof, as follows:\n\nI. No person holding such exclusive privilege as aforesaid, nor any licensee under such person as aforesaid, shall sell or dispose of any boiled or prepared opium at or near the end of the term for which such person holds such exclusive privilege or at any time during the term for which such person holds such exclusive privilege so as in either case to authorize the use of such boiled or prepared opium at any time after 12 o'clock at noon of the third day after the commencement of the term of the new holder of the exclusive privilege, under a penalty not exceeding one thousand dollars.\n\nII. Every holder of such exclusive privilege shall, one month before the end of his term of exclusive privilege expires, give public notice in the form provided by the schedule hereto that the said privilege is to expire on the day to be named and that no boiled or prepared opium purchased from such holder of such exclusive privilege or from any licensee of such holder can be used after such time without the consent of the new holder. Such notice shall be printed in English and Chinese and the holder of the exclusive privilege shall supply copies thereof to all persons licensed by him under the said recited Ordinance: and every person so licensed shall exhibit the notice in his place of sale in a conspicuous position so as to be plainly visible to every person entering such place of sale. Any person offending against any of the provisions of this section shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding one hundred dollars.\n\nIII. The holder of the exclusive privilege and his licensees shall, on the expiration of his term, hand over to the incoming holder, and the incoming holder shall take over from the outgoing holder all his stock of raw, boiled and prepared opium at such prices as may be settled subject to the proviso hereinafter contained for arbitration in case of difference.\n\nIV. Neither the holder of the exclusive privilege nor his licensees shall, at or near the end of his term, manufacture more than the usual quantity of boiled or prepared opium, or sell any boiled or prepared opium at less than the average current prices of the day, or in greater quantities than usual at the time of the year, and shall not sell, export, or otherwise make away with or dispose of any of his stock of boiled or prepared opium, but shall make over to the new holder of the said exclusive privilege the full and complete stock of raw or boiled and prepared opium at the marketable value thereof and in the event of any difference arising as to quantities of boiled and prepared opium manufactured or sold during the last three months of the term and the price of the same and of the nature and quantity of the raw or boiled or prepared opium so to be purchased or made over and the prices thereof, such difference shall be determined by three arbitrators, one to be appointed by the new holder of the exclusive privilege, one by the person whose exclusive privilege has expired or is about to expire, and one by the Governor, and the award of such arbitrators or a majority of them shall be final, and the arbitration or such other settlement shall be held at such time at or before or after the end of the term of the outgoing holder of the exclusive privilege as to the Governor may seem reasonable, and any award made may be filed in Court pursuant to the provisions of `The Hongkong Code of Civil Procedure`.\n\nV. Section VIII of the said recited Ordinance shall be amended by the insertion \"opium\" and the addition thereto of the following words:-After the word \"any\" in the third line of the said section the words \"boiled or\" and after the word \"opium\" in the fourth line thereof the words \"not purchased from the holder of the existing privilege for the time being or his licensee the burthen of proof of which purchase shall lie upon any person alleging that he so purchased the same. Provided always that no person who may have purchased any boiled or prepared opium from the outgoing holder of the exclusive privilege or from any licensee of such outgoing holder shall be liable to be convicted for having in his possession such boiled or prepared opium not exceeding three taels weight at any time before noon on the third day after the commencement of the new holder's privilege.\n\nVI. All boiled or prepared opium offered or exposed for sale or retail by any unauthorised person and all boiled or prepared opium found in the possession or custody or control of any unauthorised person or in any unauthorised place, except as in the last section mentioned, and any utensils or vessels which have been used or which are manifestly intended to be used in boiling or preparing opium by any authorised person or in any unauthorised place, may be seized by a Police or Revenue Officer, and shall be forfeited and may be by a Magistrate delivered and adjudged to the holder of the exclusive privilege for the time being, and any unauthorised person in whose possession any such boiled or prepared opium or utensils or vessels are found may be apprehended and taken before a Magistrate by any Police or Revenue Officer.\n\nVII. Whenever boiled or prepared opium is so seized as last aforesaid and any such utensils or vessels are also seized as aforesaid, the Police or Revenue Officer seizing the same may also seize any raw opium that may be found in the custody or control of such unauthorised person or in such unauthorised place and such raw opium shall be subject to the order of the Magistrate before whom the case is brought.\n\nVIII. Whenever from any other cause there is reasonable ground to believe that boiled or prepared opium is manufactured by any unauthorised person or in any unauthorised place within this Colony it shall be lawful for a Police or Revenue Officer to seize any raw opium found in the possession of such unauthorised person or in such unauthorised place.\n\nPage 46\nPage 3\n\n## 第一条 \n该承充之全权者及由伊领牌照者均不得在该承充期满后使用乃至第三日正午止。\n\n## 第二条 \n该承充之全权者须于该承充期满前一个月用下开格式公布周知。\n\n## 第三条 \n执该承充之全权者及由伊领牌照者于该承充之期已满或期满时应将现存所有生坭熟膏一切尽交新承充人。\n\n## 第四条 \n执该承充之全权者及由伊领牌照者于该承充之期将满均不得煮熟洋烟多过平时亦不得贱价沽卖过於时值中等价钱。\n\n## 第五条 \n凡有未领牌照之人有煮熟洋烟撂人采买或摆卖或寄沽及凡有煮熟洋烟在未领牌照之人掌管或见於不准之处除第五款所言外皆可緝拿归官。\n\n## 第六条 \n凡有煮熟洋烟或煮器具在未领牌照之人手上管或在不准之处者各差役收餉人员皆可将其人拿获解送巡理府定夺。\n\n## 第七条 \n凡有煮熟洋烟被差役或收餉人员拿获同时亦可将生坭洋烟一并拿获。\n\n## 第八条 \n凡有确据可信有未领牌照之人或在不准之处煮熟洋烟则差役或收餉人员有權将生坭洋烟拿获。", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-184 - Governor Hennessy - 1879 [1-5].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 306914, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-190 - Governor Hennessy - 1880 [10-12]", "page_number": 32, "title": "CO129-190 - Governor Hennessy - 1880 [10-12]", "content_text": "(12)\n\nthe Executive, and the money has been paid to the Committee, while they have been conspicuously exposed at the principal entrance door of the Hall, more than one grant having been made after the present Governor's attention had been specially directed to this notice, as is shown by the dates of these payments and by His Excellency's allusions in his speech at the Legislative Council to his \"friend Mr. Palgrave\" as being one of those who had called his attention to the notice, that gentleman not having been within my knowledge in the Colony since the summer of 1877, and by His Excellency's letter to the Committee of the 28th March 1879 with reference to the opening of the Museum to the Chinese on Sundays. It was not however till the 19th September 1879 that His Excellency, to use his own words, \"found it necessary to discontinue the annual grant of $1,200,\" and the withdrawal of the grant was not specifically put upon the ground of the notice being a \"violation of the conditions on which public money had been voted to the City Hall\" till some months later, viz., on the 10th January 1880, when the original notice had been modified under what the Committee had thought were terms of compromise with His Excellency in such a way as practically to provide for the admission of any respectable person of any nationality at all times at which the Museum is open (save Saturdays, which are reserved for Chinese women and children) gratuitously upon application. To me, it seems little short of an abuse of language to speak of this modified notice as a violation of Governor MacDonnell's conditions. The one test of admission at all times has now become respectability, in other words, the quiet behaviour and decent dress of Governor MacDonnell's minute of the 3rd October 1868, and not nationality. On the other hand, however, is not the withholding of the money for the last six months of 1879 and for the first half-year of 1880, which had been duly voted, or the paying it to Mr. Ryrie, if it has been so paid, with the obvious object that it should not reach its proper destination, a breach of contract? and could not a suit under the Civil Code of Procedure be, if necessary, successfully maintained by the Committee against the Government or against the Government and Mr. Ryrie according to circumstances? The answer to these questions may properly stand over pending the decision of the Secretary of State, before whom, it seems, all the papers have been laid.\n\nTHOS. C. HAYLLAR.\n\nHongkong, 23rd September, 1880.\n\n(13)\n\nTHE CHAIRMAN OF THE CITY HALL COMMITTEE TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES.\n\nCITY HALL, HONGKONG,\n\nOctober 1st, 1880.\n\nTo the Right Honourable THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY,\n\nHer Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies, &c., &c., &c.\n\nMY LORD,\n\nThe Committee of this Institution regret to have to again address you with reference to the matters dealt with at some length in their letter of the 13th May last.\n\nHad it not been for the statements made by His Excellency the Governor at a meeting of the Legislative Council held on the 10th September last with reference to the conduct and position of the Committee, the latter would have refrained from again troubling your Lordship and would have awaited an expression of your opinion upon the statements already presented to you. As, however, His Excellency thought fit at that meeting to express his surprise at the action of the Committee in not acceding to the proposal made by him, as he stated at the suggestion of the Secretary of State, that the experiment of opening the Museum at all hours indiscriminately should be tried for six months, the Committee think it only fair to themselves to state that on the 11th June, the date upon which they received a letter from the Colonial Secretary containing this proposal, the letter addressed to your Lordship on the 18th May had been almost a month in the hands of the Governor, and that although on the 4th June they had asked whether any despatch had been received by the Colonial Government from the Secretary of State for the Colonies with reference to the matter, and, if so, to be furnished with a copy, they had received no reply to these enquiries, notwithstanding that the despatch referred to must have been in His Excellency's possession for a considerable time.\n\nThis despatch from Sir Michael Hicks-Beach was also referred to at the meeting of the Legislative Council the other day, but has not been furnished to the Committee, although applied for by them, in order that they might submit it with the other documents to Counsel.\n\nThe Committee have always been most anxious to listen to any suggestion that might be made either by your Lordship's predecessor or yourself, but as they found that the despatch to your Lordship had apparently not been forwarded as requested, but had been kept back\n\n30\n\nDec.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-190 - Governor Hennessy - 1880 [10-12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 309317, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-193 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [5-7]", "page_number": 657, "title": "CO129-193 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [5-7]", "content_text": "16\n\n650 7\n\nI enclose the draft of an Ordinance which, advised, will remove all difficulties, and secure the objects which Your Lordship has in view.\n\nThe mention of Mr. Plunket's name in connection with this Office must, as Your Lordship surmised, have been an inadvertence on the part of Chief Justice Smale. Mr. Plunket never was appointed Sheriff. Mr. Sangster was provisionally appointed to the Office by Mr. Administrator Austin in April, 1877, and has held it since that date.\n\n18.\n\nIn complying with Your Lordship's wish to receive a full report upon the position and duties of the Sheriff, including the method of executing the process of the Court, and specially noticing the question whether the Government is considered responsible for his acts, in the event of any neglect or misfeasance in executing the process entrusted to him, I have been favoured by Mr. Snowden, the Acting Chief Justice, with the following particulars :-\n\n\"The Sheriff is an Officer to a certain extent under the control of the Supreme Court. (See Sheriffs Ordinance of 1873, Sec: 19.) It must be observed, however, that the Supreme Court \"Reconstruction Ordinance (12 of 1873), and the Hongkong Code of Civil Procedure (13 of 1873), are of later date, and possibly...", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-193 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [5-7].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 330322, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-225 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1886 [1-3]", "page_number": 184, "title": "CO129-225 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1886 [1-3]", "content_text": "## \n\nIT IS ORDERED that the said Defendant be, and is hereby prohibited and restrained, until the further Order of this Court, from receiving from Otto Franz Von Mollendorff, the following Property in the Possession of the said Otto Franz Von Mollendorff, namely: Certain Balls of Raw Opium, some prepared opium, or certain proceeds of sale thereof, to which the said Defendant is entitled, subject to any Claim, Lien or Right of the said Otto Franz Von Mollendorff. AND ALSO that the said Otto Franz Von Mollendorff be, and he is hereby prohibited and restrained, until the further Order of this Court, from delivering the said Property to any Person or Persons whomsoever.\n\n## EXTRACT\n\nFrom \"The Hongkong Code of Civil Procedure,\" Part III, c. 12, as to the Service and Effect of Prohibitory Orders.\n\n180\n\nPara. 8. \"In the Case of Goods, Chattels, or other moveable Property not in the Possession of the Defendant, an Office Copy of the Order shall be delivered to the Person in Possession of the Property. In the Case of Lands, Houses, or other immoveable Property, or any Interest therein, an Office Copy of the Order shall be registered in the Land Office under Ordinance No. 8 of 1844. In the Case of Debts, Office Copies of the Order shall be delivered to or served upon each individual Debtor. And in Case of Shares in the Capital or Joint-stock of any public Company or Corporation, an Office Copy of the Order shall be delivered to or served upon the Manager, Secretary, or other proper Officer of the Company or Corporation.\"\n\nPara. 9. \"After any Attachment shall have been made by actual Seizure, or by written Order as aforesaid, and in the Case of an Attachment by written Order, after it shall have been duly intimated and made known in Manner aforesaid, any Alienation without Leave of the Court of the Property attached, whether by Sale, Gift, or otherwise, and any Payment of the Debt or Debts or Dividends, or Shares to the Defendant during the Continuance of the Attachment, shall be null and void.\"\n\n## WITNESS \nthe Honourable, Sir George Phillippo, the Chief Justice of our said Court at Hongkong.\n\nThe 16 day of January A.D. 188...\n\nC. F. A. Sangster.\nDeputy Registrar", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-225 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1886 [1-3].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 330324, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-225 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1886 [1-3]", "page_number": 186, "title": "CO129-225 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1886 [1-3]", "content_text": "## 182\n\nIT IS ORDERED that the said Defendant be, and is hereby prohibited and restrained, until the further Order of this Court, from receiving from Otto Franz Von Mollendorf the following Property in the Possession of the said Otto Franz Von Mollendorf, that is to say: certain Bills of Exchange or certain proceeds of the sale thereof, or certain moneys to which the said Defendant is entitled, subject to any Claim, Lien or Right of the said Otto Franz Von Mollendorf. AND ALSO that the said Otto Franz Von Mollendorf be, and he is hereby prohibited and restrained, until the further Order of this Court, from delivering the said Property to any Person or Persons whomsoever.\n\n## Section LXXVI.\n\n### EXTRACT\n\nFrom \"The Hongkong Code of Civil Procedure,\" Part III, c. 12, as to the Service and Effect of Prohibitory Orders.\n\nPara. 8. “In the Case of Goods, Chattels, or other moveable Property not in the Possession of the Defendant, an Office Copy of the Order shall be delivered to the Person in Possession of the Property. In the Case of Lands, Houses, or other immoveable Property, or any Interest therein, an Office Copy of the Order shall be registered in the Land Office under `Ordinance No. 3 of 1844`. In the Case of Debts, Office Copies of the Order shall be delivered to or served upon each individual Debtor. And in Case of Shares in the Capital or Joint-stock of any public Company or Corporation, an Office Copy of the Order shall be delivered to or served upon the Manager, Secretary, or other proper Officer of the Company or Corporation.\"\n\nPara. 9. “After any Attachment shall have been made By actual Seizure, or by written Order as aforesaid, and in the Case of an Attachment by written Order, after it shall have been duly intimated and made known in Manner aforesaid, any Alienation without Leave of the Court of the Property attached, whether by Sale, Gift, or otherwise, and any Payment of the Debt or Debts or Dividends, or Shares to the Defendant during the Continuance of the Attachment, shall be null and void.”\n\nWITNESS **Sir George Phillippe, Knt**, Chief Justice of our said Court at Hongkong, this 16th Day of January A.D. 1881.\n\nC.F.A. Sangster \nDeputy Registrar.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-225 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1886 [1-3].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 330326, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-225 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1886 [1-3]", "page_number": 188, "title": "CO129-225 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1886 [1-3]", "content_text": "# IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONGKONG\n## SUMMARY JURISDICTION\n### SUIT No. 50.11 of 1886\n\n# IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONGKONG\n## SUMMARY JURISDICTION\n\nPLAINTIFFS \n**Lane Sheong** \n\nDEFENDANT \n**(Copy)**\n\n### JUDGE'S SUMMONS\nfor delivery of certain chattels (the result of sale thereof.\n\nThis Summons is issued under \"The Supreme Court Summary Jurisdiction Ordinance, 1886\" and Section XLV of **The Hongkong Code of Civil Procedure**.\n\nWotton & Deacon \nAttorneys for Plaintiffs \n\n### HONGKONG\n#### SUIT No. 12 of 1886\n\nPLAINTIFFS \n**Lan Sheong** \n\nDEFENDANT \n**Su Mai** \n\nTo **Dr. Otto Franz Von Moellendorff** \nThe 22nd day of January 1886.\n\nOn the application of Messrs Wotton & Deacon, Solicitors for the Plaintiffs, You are hereby summoned to appear before The Honourable Mr. Justice Russell on Thursday, the 28th day of January 1886, at 11 o'clock in the forenoon and show cause why certain Bales of Raw Silk, or the proceeds of the sale thereof, should not be handed over or paid to the Plaintiffs herein in part satisfaction of their judgment debt.\n\nAnd you are to take notice, that if you do not appear, the Court may consider and deal with the Application in a Summary way.\n\nLS. \n**17 CB.A. Sangster** \nDeputy Registrar.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-225 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1886 [1-3].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 330327, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-225 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1886 [1-3]", "page_number": 189, "title": "CO129-225 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1886 [1-3]", "content_text": "## IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONGKONG\n### SUMMARY JURISDICTION\n#### SUIT No. 122 of 1882\n\n**PLAINTIFFS** \nLan Sherg \n\n**DEFENDANT** \nSummi \n\n(Copy) \n`5.901` \n**Opinion of the Attorney-General** \n185 \n\nI am of opinion that the position taken up by the Consul in his letters of January 20th and 23rd cannot be admitted. I do not think there is any international usage for delivery to plaintiffs of certain goods or certain moneys.\n\n## JUDGE'S SUMMONS\nThis Summons is issued under \"The Supreme Court Summary Jurisdiction Ordinance, 1873\" and Section XLV of \"The Hongkong Civil Procedure Code\".\n\n**Motion** \n[Attorney for Maut]\n\nI do not know of any usage according to which the Consul could claim exemption from the ordinary process of the Court executed in the ordinary way as in the case here complained of, nor do I know of any convention or arrangement between our Government and the German Government under which any special status apart from what the ordinary rules of law and international usage would give has been granted to German Consuls in British Ports.\n\nSpeaking broadly (subject to certain special exceptions not here in point) Consuls...", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-225 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1886 [1-3].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 334497, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]", "page_number": 319, "title": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]", "content_text": "314\n\n13.\n\n14.\n\nCivil Procedure that Judgment should be entered for your Petitioner or for Review of the Decree but such Motion under the circumstances hereafter mentioned was not brought on for Argument.\n\nThe Plaintiffs on the 30 April 1885, and after final Judgment took out a Summons in the suit before His Honor the Chief Justice in Chambers for an Order under Section LXX. of the Hongkong Code of Civil Procedure to be put into possession by the Sheriff or other Officer of the Court of land which was in the said Summons referred to as the land which by the Decree of the Court was declared to belong to them the Plaintiffs.\n\nOn the same day, the 30th April 1885, an Order was made in Chambers on the said Summons that the Registrar should proceed to the Land and settle the boundary upon the land which had been found by the Decree in the said suit to be the boundary between the parties, the Registrar to be attended by the parties, their respective Solicitors and such Surveyors as they might call on either side.\n\n15. On the 11th of May 1885, the Acting Registrar of the Supreme Court proceeded to the Land accompanied by the Honorable John M. Macneile Price, Her Majesty's Surveyor General of the Colony, and your Petitioner and Mr. Vanby, and on the 11th of May 1885, he made his Report of that date to the Court. The said Report, after stating the said here and the said Order of the 30th of April 1885, proceeded as follows:\n\n\"In accordance with the terms of such Order, on May 11th 1885, I proceeded to the land accompanied by the defendant and the Honorable John Macneile Price, Surveyor General, and William Canby. I called on Mr. Vanby to point out his line of demarcation between Lots 15 and 38, and Lot 184. On his doing so, it appeared that the point at which the said line cut the Northern boundaries of Lots 184 and 185 was settled and agreed to by all the parties. So that the only point at issue was the point at which the line of demarcation cut the Southern boundaries. Mr. Vanby fixed this latter point...\n\n\"Mr. Vanby in his evidence given at the trial explains how he arrived at this point. 'On page 154 of Chief Justice's note book he says: I fixed the S.W. point of Lot 185 by typing... On page 152, The N.W. corner of Lot 38 was... Slips, but two inches off it into corner of MacDonald's buildings: 12 feet 8, from corner of dwelling house of MacDonald's... He fixed the point again on February 2nd 1880, by means of dwelling house, and again on December 10th 1881. On page 35 of shorthand notes of cross-examination he shows how he fixes the...\n\n...", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 334596, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]", "page_number": 418, "title": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]", "content_text": "IT IS ORDERED that the said Defendant be, and is hereby prohibited and restrained, until the further Order of this Court, from receiving from Otto Franz von Mollendorff the following Property in the Possession of the said Otto Franz von Mollendorff, that is to say :-\n\nFranz Opium\n\nDow...\n\nor certain balls of Raw Opium and the proceeds of sale thereof, to which the said Defendant is entitled, subject to any Claim, Lien or Right of the said Otto Franz von Mollendorff AND ALSO that the said Otto Franz von Mollendorff be, and he is hereby prohibited and restrained, until the further Order of this Court, from delivering the said Property to any Person or Persons whomsoever\n\nEXTRACT\n\nFrom \"The Hongkong Code of Civil Procedure,\" Part III c. 12, as to the Service and Effect of Prohibitory Orders.\n\n403\n\nPara. 8. \"In the Case of Goods, Chattels, or other movable Property not in the Possession of the Defendant, an Office Copy of the Order shall be delivered to the Person in Possession of the Property. In the Case of Lands, Houses, or other immovable Property, or any Interest therein, an Office Copy of the Order shall be registered in the Land Office under Ordinance No. 8 of 1844. In the Case of Debts, Office Copies of the Order shall be delivered to or served upon each individual Debtor. And in Case of Shares in the Capital or Joint-stock of any public Company or Corporation, an Office Copy of the Order shall be delivered to or served upon the Manager, Secretary, or other proper Officer of the Company or Corporation.”\n\nPara. 9. \"After any Attachment shall have been made by actual Seizure, or by written Order as aforesaid, and in the Case of an Attachment by written Order, after it shall have been duly intimated and made known in Manner aforesaid, any Alienation without Leave of the Court of the Property attached, whether by Sale, Gift, or otherwise, and any Payment of the Debt or Debts or Dividends, or Shares to the Defendant during the Continuance of the Attachment, shall be null and void.”\n\nWITNESS\n\nSir George Phillippo\n\nChief Justice of our said Court at Hongkong\n\nThe 10th day of January A.D. 1886\n\n(Signed) C. of Arangeter\n\nDeputy Registrar.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 334597, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]", "page_number": 419, "title": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]", "content_text": "Memorandum of the Date and Mode of Service.\n\nIN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONGKONG.\n\nJ. 54.) JURISDICTION, Surr No. 12 12 of 186\n\nPLAINTIFFS Lau Theong & another\n\nDEFENDANT Su Mui\n\nCopy PROHIBITORY ORDER.\n\nNo. 1.\n\nPLAINTIFFS DEFENDANT\n\nIN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONGKONG, SUIT No. Law. Sheong Lane In Mof 1886. and another 419\n\nN.B.--This Order is to be returned into the Registrar's Office immediately after the Execution thereof with a Memorandum endorsed thereon of the Date and Mode of Execution.\n\nAttachment of movable Property not in the Possession of the Defendant.\n\nDate of Order,\n\nN.B.--This Order is issued under Secti LXXVI (Para. 3) of \"The Hongkong Code Civil Procedure,\" and any Person guilty of wilful Disobedience thereto will be liable to be dealt with under the Provisions of Section LXXX\n\nTo Otto Franz Vow Fice Consul xiong trong Mollendorff His Imperial Majesty's N Traya for Germany Lam du\n\nWHEREAS the above named Defendant has failed to satisfy a Decree made against him in the above named Suit on the 15 day of January 1886. in favor of the above named Plaintiff for $ 250-\n\nAND WHEREAS a Writ of Execution has been issued to enforce said Decree by the Attachment of the said Defendant's Property :\n\nPlaintiff's Attorach Wotton & Drac HONGKON\n\n[TURN OVER.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 334598, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]", "page_number": 420, "title": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]", "content_text": "471\n\nIT IS ORDERED that the said Defendant be, and is hereby prohibited and restrained, until the further Order of this Court, from receiving from Otto Franz von Mollenday the following Property in the Possession of the said Otto Franz von Mollendorff, that is to say:- certain Balls of Raw Opium and some prepared opium or certain proceeds of the sale thereof to which the said Defendant is entitled, subject to any Claim, Lien or Right of the said Otto Franz von Mollendorff.\n\nAND ALSO that the said Otto Franz von Mollendorff be, and he is hereby prohibited and restrained, until the further Order of this Court, from delivering the said Property to any Person or Persons whomsoever.\n\nSection LXXVI.\n\nEXTRACT from The Hongkong Code of Civil Procedure, Part III, c. 12, as to the Service and Effect of Prohibitory Orders.\n\nPara. 5. \"In the Case of Goods, Chattels, or other movable Property not in the Possession of the Defendant, an Office Copy of the Order shall be delivered to the Person in Possession of the Property. In the Case of Lands, Houses, or other immovable Property, or any Interest therein, an Office Copy of the Order shall be registered in the Land Office under Ordinance No. 3 of 1844. In the Case of Debts, Office Copies of the Order shall be delivered to or served upon each individual Debtor. And in Case of Shares in the Capital or Joint-stock of any public Company or Corporation, an Office Copy of the Order shall be delivered to or served upon the Manager, Secretary, or other Officer of the Company or Corporation.\"\n\nPara. ... \"After any Attachment shall have been made by actual Seizure, or by written Order as aforesaid, and in the Case of an Attachment by written Order, after it shall have been duly intimated and made known in Manner aforesaid, any Alienation without Leave of the Court of the Property attached, whether by Sale, Gift, or otherwise, and any Payment of the Debt or Debts or Dividends, or Shares to the Defendant during the Continuance of the Attachment, shall be null and void.\"\n\nWITNESS For George Philipp.\n\nThe Hon: Knight Chief Justice.\n\nThe 15 day of January.\n\nour said Court at Hongkong A.D. 1880.\n\n(Signed) C. F. A. Langtgen Deputy Registrar.\n\nPage 420\n\nPage 421", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 334599, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]", "page_number": 421, "title": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]", "content_text": "Memorandum of the Date and Mode of Service.\n\nIN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONGKONG.\n\nD JURISDICTION.\n\nScrt No. 11 of 188\n\nPLAINTIFFS Lau Sheong Fanother\n\nDEFENDANT Lam Su\n\nCopy\n\nPROHIBITORY ORDER.\n\nNo. 1.\n\nDeardins,\n\n18012412 35 Queen's Road Hongkong 25 y 12865 15 5.8.\n\n\"Meurie\"\n\nWe have been informed that the 49 Balls and the 96 boxes of prepared opium which were branded over to the Customs Authorities at ouvron by the Master of the S.S. \"Mearie\" have been returned to him and are now on his ship in the harbour.\n\nI shall be glad if you will arrange for the opium to be handed over to our Clients as they are the owners of it.\n\nYours faithfully,\n\n(e) Wotton + Deacon\n\nAttachment of movable Property not in the Possession of the Defendant.\n\nDate of Order,\n\nFraser Miller & C°\n\nN.B.-This Order is to be returned into the Registrar's Office immediately after the Execution thereof with a Memorandum endorsed thereon of the Date and Mode of Execution.\n\nN.B.---This Order is issued under Section LXXVI (Para. 3) of \"The Hongkong Code: Civil Procedure,\" and any Person guilty of wilful Disobedience thereto will be liable to be dealt with under the Provisions of Section LXXX.\n\nWotton & Deacon Plaintiff Attorney, HONGKONG.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 341905, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-245 - Acting Governor Fleming - 1890 [5-7]", "page_number": 288, "title": "CO129-245 - Acting Governor Fleming - 1890 [5-7]", "content_text": "My Lord,\n\n1657 F\n\nEnclosure 1.\n\n7 May 1890.\n\n15055\n\nIR 7 JUN 90\n\nGovernment House,\n\nHongkong, 4th June,\n\n1890.\n\nWith reference to Sir G. William Des Voeux's despatch W.216 of 10th July, 1889, and to Your Lordship's despatch W.34 of the 19th of Febry. last, I have the honour to transmit for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure the following Ordinance entitled:-\n\na spare copies in Ordinance to amend the Hongkong.\n\nEnclosure 2.\n\n\"Code of Civil Procedure _(No. 8 of 1890).\n\n2. The customary Report by the Attorney General is annexed.\n\nad May 1890.\n\n285\n\nThe Right Honourable\n\nI have the honour to be,\n\nMy Lord,\n\nYour Lordship's\n\nLord Knutsford, GCMG,\n\n&c.,\n\n&c.\n\nmost obedient\n\nHumble Servant,\n\nWilliam Jennings", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-245 - Acting Governor Fleming - 1890 [5-7].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 351484, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-258 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1893 [1-4]", "page_number": 399, "title": "CO129-258 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1893 [1-4]", "content_text": "N/3.\n\nEnclosure\n\nC.C 398/5411 bt. 3 APR 06.\n\nGovernment House, Hongkong 2 February 1883.\n\nMy Lord Marquess,\n\nI have the honour to transmit for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure the following Ordinance entitled: - \"An Ordinance to amend the Civil Procedure Code\" No. 5 of 1883.\n\n2. The customary Report by the Attorney General is annexed.\n\n17 Febry 1883\n\nEnclosure 2.\n\n15 Feb 1883.\n\nThe Right Honourable,\n\nI have the honour to be,\n\nMy Lord Marquess,\n\nYour Lordship's most obedient Humble Servant,\n\nM. Marshsir(?)\n\nThe Marquess of Ripon, K.G.\n\n&c., &c., &c.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-258 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1893 [1-4].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 351485, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-258 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1893 [1-4]", "page_number": 400, "title": "CO129-258 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1893 [1-4]", "content_text": "399\n\nEnclosure.\n\nREPORT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ON ORDINANCE No. OF 1895\n\nC. C. 541\n\nATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE,\n\n3rd April 1895.\n\n21st February 1895.\n\nI have examined the accompanying Ordinance, entitled :-\n\n\"Ordinance to amend the Hongkong Code of Civil Procedure,\n\nand I am of opinion that the Ordinance is one which is not contrary to the Governor's Instructions.\n\nI append a statement of the objects of the Ordinance and Reasons for this Ordinance.\n\n(Signed)\n\nW. M. Goodridge,\n\nAttorney General.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-258 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1893 [1-4].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 351486, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-258 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1893 [1-4]", "page_number": 401, "title": "CO129-258 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1893 [1-4]", "content_text": "## Objects and Reasons\n\nProceedings by and against partnership firms have, in this Colony, since 1873, been regulated by Section 14 of the **Hongkong Code of Civil Procedure**. \n\nThat law has not worked quite satisfactorily. In England a new set of Rules dealing fully with this subject came into operation on 1st July, 1891. \n\nThe embodiment of those Rules in the **Hongkong Code**, in lieu of Section 14, seems a desirable improvement in our law and this Bill, which has been submitted to the Judges of the **Supreme Court** and approved by them, effects that object. This amendment of the Code should amongst other things facilitate the collection of debts from Chinese firms trading, as they often do, under styles which do not reveal the names of the partners.\n\n**W. MEIGH GOODMAN**, Attorney General.\n\nPage 400\nPage 411", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-258 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1893 [1-4].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 352912, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-260 - Governor Sir Robinson Acting Governor O-Brien - 1893 [9-12]", "page_number": 504, "title": "CO129-260 - Governor Sir Robinson Acting Governor O-Brien - 1893 [9-12]", "content_text": "ORDINANCE No. 21 of 1891.\n\nPrepared Opium.\n\nProvided that the provisions of section 18 as to fines for breaches of regulations shall apply equally to all breaches of regulations as to the sale or preparation of opium imposed upon the licensees under this section.\n\n16. The Governor in Council may from time to time upon such terms as he may think expedient grant the privilege of collecting dross, and of preparing and dealing in dross opium; and the grantee thereof may grant licences to persons approved by him to collect dross, or to prepare or deal in dross opium, and such licensees when collecting shall carry such badge as the Governor may direct.\n\n17. The Governor in Council may in like manner grant out the privilege of keeping divans for the smoking of opium to any person, and the grantee or grantees of such privilege may issue licences to separate keepers of such divans. The Governor in Council may make such regulations as to the division of opium smoking divans into classes as to him may seem expedient.\n\n18. The Governor in Council may from time to time make, revoke, add to, or alter a scale of fines to be levied for breaches of the regulations under which any privilege is granted under this Ordinance; provided such scale shall not come into effect until the same has been published in the Gazette. Every fine provided by such scale shall be levied in the same manner as the fines imposed by this Ordinance.\n\n19. If the consideration money for any privilege granted under this or any Ordinance hereby repealed, or any instalment thereof, be not paid within one month next after the day appointed for the payment thereof, the said privilege shall become null and void, and, over and above all other liabilities under this Ordinance or any Ordinance hereby repealed, or any conditions of such privilege, the farmer shall be liable to make good to the Governor all losses or expenses incurred by reason of such default in payment, or by reason of any resale or regrant of such privilege which the Governor in Council may thereupon make, and to make which he is hereby authorised.\n\nTransfer of Farm. Arbitration.\n\n20. Every opium farmer shall, one month before his privilege expires, give public notice, in the form of schedule C, that such privilege is to expire on the day named in such notice, which shall be the last day of his exclusive privilege, and that no prepared opium purchased from such farmer, or from any licensee of such farmer, can be used without the consent of the new farmer after noon of the third day next after such date. Such notice shall be printed in English and Chinese, and the farmer shall supply copies thereof to all persons licensed by him under this Ordinance, and every such licensed person shall exhibit such notice in the place where he sells prepared opium, in a conspicuous position, so as to be plainly visible to every person entering such place.\n\n21. The opium farmer shall not during the three months preceding the end of his term, prepare more than the usual quantity of opium, and neither he nor his licensees shall during such three months sell any prepared opium at less than the average current prices of the day, or in greater quantities than is usual at the time of year, and at the end of his term such farmer or his licensees shall not sell, export or otherwise make away with or dispose of any of his or their stock of prepared opium, but shall make over to the incoming farmer the full and complete stock of raw or prepared opium then in their possession, at the marketable value thereof together with all furniture, fittings and implements used in or about the opium farmer's premises for the purposes of his privilege and the incoming farmer shall be bound to take over and pay for the same accordingly.\n\n22. All licensees of the Governor in Council under section 15, when there is no opium farmer, shall, during the last three months of the period of their licences, be subject to such restrictions as to the quantities of opium they shall prepare and sell as the Governor in Council may from time to time determine.\n\n23. In the event of any difference arising between the incoming and out-going opium farmers as to the quantities of prepared opium produced or sold during the last three months of the term, and the value of the same, or as to the nature and quantity of the raw or prepared opium so to be purchased or made over, or the values thereof, or as to the value of the furniture, fittings and implements aforesaid, such difference shall be determined by three arbitrators, one to be appointed by the new farmer, one by the out-going farmer, and one by the Governor. The award of such arbitrators, or of a majority of them, shall be final, and the arbitration or such other settlement shall be held at such time after the end of the term of the out-going farmer as may seem reasonable to the Governor. Any award made may be filed in Court pursuant to the Hongkong Code of Civil Procedure.\n\n24. The majority of the arbitrators may determine, and are hereby empowered to decide in each particular case, what are usual quantities of prepared opium within the meaning of this Ordinance.\n\n25. In case either the out-going or incoming opium farmer fails to appoint an arbitrator within ten days from his receiving notice from the Governor so to do, the other farmer may appoint an arbitrator on his behalf, and the arbitrator or arbitrators so appointed shall act as if he or they had been appointed by both farmers.\n\nPage 501", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-260 - Governor Sir Robinson Acting Governor O-Brien - 1893 [9-12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 374979, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-296 - Public Offices & Others - 1899", "page_number": 308, "title": "CO129-296 - Public Offices & Others - 1899", "content_text": "35305 \n\nTEOD \n\n21 DEC 391 \n\n302 \n\n50 Woodstock Road, Oxford, \n\n20th December, 1899. \n\nSir,\n\nI have the honour to forward herewith three copies of the Draft \n\nCode of Civil Procedure which I have prepared \n\nfor the Government of Hongkong. I have been \n\ncontinuously engaged on this work from the \n\n26th July to the 9th \n\nDecember, \n\n1899. \n\nThe remaining copies are ready to be dispatched immediately, and I shall be glad if the Crown Agent \n\nmay be instructed to dispatch \n\nthem to Hongkong without delay. \n\nI propose that \n\nthe work of \n\nrevising the \n\nmay \n\nbe taken in hand \n\nby me \n\nimmediately after my arrival in the Colony. \n\nI am, \n\nyour obedient servant, \n\nI. W. Carrington. \n\nUnder Secretary of State \n\nColonial Office \n\nLondon \n\nS.W.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-296 - Public Offices & Others - 1899.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 382531, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-307 - Governor Sir Blake - 1901 [10-12]", "page_number": 514, "title": "CO129-307 - Governor Sir Blake - 1901 [10-12]", "content_text": "Section 8.--This corrects omissions in sections 37 and 38 of the Liquor Licenses Ordinance, 1898, to provide penalties for offences subsequent to the second one.\n\nSection 9 corrects a mistake which was due to the fact that the Criminal Procedure Ordinance was originally drafted in 1898.\n\nThe object of sub-section (1.) of section 10 is to amend an error in the first line of section 23 of Ordinance 33 of 1900, which was pointed out in a despatch dated the 14th March, 1901, from the Secretary of State for the Colonies.\n\nThe object of sub-section (2.) of section 10 is to remove an ambiguity (which was referred to in the same despatch) Arising from the use of the words \"and shall be recoverable in like manner as other Crown debts in respect of rent and otherwise as therein mentioned.\"\n\nSection 11. This corrects an omission in Ordinance 4 of 1901, which was pointed out in the Secretary of State's Despatch (No. 178) of the 16th May, 1901.\n\nThe object of the amendment introduced by section 12 is to provide that, in default of a reply on any subsequent pleading being filed within the time allowed, the material statements of fact in the pleading last delivered are put in issue.\n\nThe object of section 13 is to amend sub-section (2.) of section 514 of the Code of Civil Procedure, so as to provide for the case of the non-appearance of a party.\n\nThe object of section 14 is to amend a mistake in section 10 of Ordinance 9 of 1901, which was pointed out in a despatch from the Secretary of State when that Ordinance was sent home for approval.\n\nThe object of section 15 is to set right a clerical error in Ordinance 13 of 1901.\n\nThe Schedule (i.). As regards the repeal of Ordinance 3 of 1854.\n\nOrdinance 3 of 1854 introduced into this Colony the provisions of the following English Acts of Parliament:-\n\n(a.) 6 & 7 Victoria chap. 34, repealed by Ordinance 4 of 1887.\n\n(b.) 6 & 7 Victoria chap. 85, repealed by Ordinance 2 of 1889.\n\n(c.) 6 & 7 Victoria chap. 96, repealed by Ordinance 5 of 1887.\n\n(d.) 7 & 8 Victoria chap. 62, repealed by Ordinance 11 of 1865.\n\n(e) 8 & 9 Victoria chap. 47, repealed by Ordinance 11 of 1865.\n\n(f) 9 & 10 Victoria chap. 25, repealed by Ordinance 11 of 1865.\n\n(g.) 10 & 11 Victoria chap. 66, repealed by Ordinance 11 of 1865.\n\n(h.) 14 & 15 Victoria chap. 19, which was repealed by Ordinance 11 of 1865 so far as related to sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and 9.\n\n(i) 15 & 16 Victoria chap. 24, repealed by Ordinance 28 of 1886.\n\nIt will accordingly be seen that, in repealing Ordinance 3 of 1854, the only question which has to be considered is the question of the necessity for continuing the provisions of 14 & 15 Victoria chap. 19, other than sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and 9 which were repealed, so far as this Colony was concerned, by Ordinance 11 of 1865, as above stated.\n\nSection 5 of the Statute 14 & 15 Victoria chap. 19 will be found embodied in section 57 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, 13 of 1899.\n\nAs regards sections 6 & 7 there are no Railways in this Colony.\n\nAs regards section 8 the law as to Arson embodied in Ordinance 8 of 1865 appears to be sufficient.\n\nThe remaining sections of 14 & 15 Victoria chap. 19, dealing mainly with matters of procedure, are obviously not needed now.\n\n(ii.) Repeal of sections 8 to 11 of Ordinance 12 of 1856.\n\nSection 8, as to the punishment of accessories to nuisances, appears to be unnecessary now. As to the punishment of accessories in cases triable summarily, see Ordinance 10 of 1890 s. 37, and as to accessories in other cases, see 5 of 1865 sections 1 to 4.\n\n14228\n\n19233\n\nSection 9, which incorporates this Ordinance with certain other Ordinances, seems to be superfluous.\n\nAs regards section 10, the matters of procedure referred to in the first part of that section are dealt with fully by the Magistrates Ordinance, 1890, whilst the latter part of the section refers to certain provisions of Ordinance 8 of 1856, the whole of which Ordinance was repealed by Ordinance 15 of 1889.\n\nWith regard to section 11 of Ordinance 12 of 1856, costs are provided for sufficiently by The Magistrates Ordinance, 1890.\n\n(iii) Repeal of Ordinance 7 of 1858.\n\nThis Ordinance is now wholly unnecessary. It amended Ordinance 11 of 1844, which was repealed with the exception of sections 38 and 39 by Ordinance 21 of 1886; sections 38 and 39 being subsequently repealed by Ordinance 21 of 1887.\n\n(iv) Repeal of section 18 and of sections 29 to 31 of Ordinance 8 of 1858.\n\nAs regards section 18, the Registrar General reports that it has not been acted on for many years.\n\nAs regards sections 29 to 31, which deal principally with matters of procedure, the Magistrates Ordinance, 1890, seems to deal with such matters sufficiently.\n\n(v.) Repeal of Ordinance 5 of 1860.\n\nThis Ordinance repealed Ordinance 5 of 1858 simply and it seems unnecessary that it should appear in a revised edition of the Ordinances. (See Ordinance 24 of 1897, s. 10 (2.).)\n\n(vi.) Repeal of Ordinance 3 of 1862.\n\nThis Ordinance consists of three sections only, of which sections 1 and 2 made certain amendments in Ordinance 18 of 1860, which was repealed by Ordinance 29 of 1890, whilst section 3 contained a suspending clause.\n\n(vii.) Repeal of Ordinance 7 of 1864.\n\nThe effect of this Ordinance is spent. It simply authorized a compilation of a new edition of the Ordinances, as they then stood; omitting all Ordinances or parts of Ordinances which had ceased to be of effect.\n\n(viii) Repeal of Ordinance 9 of 1864.\n\nThis Ordinance gave certain further powers to the Commissioners appointed to compile a New Edition of the Ordinances and effected certain amendments in various Ordinances and parts of Ordinances which have since been repealed.\n\n(ix.) Repeal of section 29 and part of section 34 of Ordinance 7 of 1865.\n\nAs regards section 29, the effect of it will be found enacted in section 58 of Ordinance 13 of 1899.\n\nAs regards the part of section 34 which is repealed, the matter included in the repealed portion appears to be covered by sections 25 and 53 of Ordinance 13 of 1899.\n\n(x.) Repeal of Ordinance 1 of 1865, except section 5.\n\nSections 1 to 4 of this Ordinance introduced small amendments in various Criminal statutes.\n\nSection 5 substituted a new section 64 in Ordinance 4 of 1865.\n\nSection 6 authorized the Commissioners to make the amendments passed by this Ordinance in their new edition of the statutes.\n\n(xi.) Repeal of Ordinance 1 of 1868 sections 10 to 31.\n\nThe repealed portions of this Ordinance provided for the institution of a Special Court to be called \"The High Court of Hongkong for the Suppression of Piracy.\"\n\nIt is believed that such a Special Court for the trial of Piracy has never been constituted yet, and there is no likelihood that it will be so constituted.\n\n(xii.) Repeal of Ordinance 7 of 1868.\n\nThe whole of this Ordinance, which relates to Juries, except s. 9, which is a suspending clause, has been repealed by Ordinances 8 of 1872, 18 of 1887, and 17 of 1888.\n\n511", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-307 - Governor Sir Blake - 1901 [10-12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 384519, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-310 - Acting Governor Major Gen Gascoigne - 1902 [1-4]", "page_number": 396, "title": "CO129-310 - Acting Governor Major Gen Gascoigne - 1902 [1-4]", "content_text": "C.O \n\n392 \n\n16817 \n\nATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, \n\n& \n\nREG 23 APR 12 \n\n19 & Winch 1002. \n\nReport on Ordinance he of 1902. \n\nI have examined the accompanying Ordinance, entitled \n\nAn Ordinance to amend the Ordinance to provide for \n\nthe Registration of Deeds, Wills, Judgments, and \n\nConveyances affecting real or immoveable property in \n\nHongkong (No. 3 of 1844), \n\nand I am of opinion that the Ordinance is one which is not contrary to \n\nthe Governor's Instructions. \n\nSince the Ordinance for the Registration of Deeds, &c., in the Land Office (Ordinance No. 3 of 1844) came into force, statutory provision has been made for the registration of a Lis Pendens (Ordinance No. 10 of 1856), and for the registration of its discharge, as well as for the issue by the Land Officer of a Certificate of entry of such discharge (Ordinance No. 2 of 1896). \n\nMoreover, the Code of Civil Procedure, Ordinance No. 5 of 1901, requires a Writ of Foreign Attachment to be registered in the Land Office, and makes provision for the filing in such office of a Certificate that the Writ has been dissolved, or that the judgment in the action has been satisfied (see section 462). Fees to be paid for these matters were fixed by the said Code. \n\nIt became, therefore, in any case desirable to amend the original List of Fees specified in Ordinance No. 3 of 1844, and to bring it into line with the present practice of the Office. \n\nSome few fees seem also to have been received and paid over to the Colonial Treasurer, without express Statutory authority, the Land Officer acting on instructions received from time to time by the Government, as for instance in the case of the reasonable charges for parchment plans and for affixing the Public Seal to Crown Leases.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-310 - Acting Governor Major Gen Gascoigne - 1902 [1-4].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 404974, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-334 - Governor Nathan - 1906 [5-7]", "page_number": 169, "title": "CO129-334 - Governor Nathan - 1906 [5-7]", "content_text": "# Enclosure 10\n\nSir,\n\nGovernment House, Hongkong, 28th June, 1905.\n\n165\n\nI have given careful consideration to Your Honour's letter No. 2 dated the 3rd instant bringing to my notice certain matters connected with the Supreme Court as to which the existing arrangements are stated to be very defective.\n\nAs regards the first point raised on it,\n\n2.\n\nviz., that the Judges have no Secretaries it will, I think, be convenient if I trace the genesis of the arrangements by which Your Honour's predecessors considered that the requisite clerical assistance had been provided for them. The appointment of Clerk to the Chief Justice dates back at any rate to 1880; that of Clerk to the Puisne Judge to 1878.\n\nIn 1882 the Supreme Court Ordinance of 1873 was amended to provide 2 Deputy Registrars and 2 Clerks of the Court instead of 1 Deputy Registrar and 1 Clerk of the Court. No Clerks of the Court \"eo nomine\" were, however, appointed, the Judges' Clerks being treated as filling these appointments, and the duty of making a \"minute of every Judgment whether final or interlocutory\" which was required by the Code of Civil Procedure to be made by the Registrar being carried out (with doubtful legality as regards Judgments or Orders made by the Chief Justice in Chambers) by the Chief Justice's Clerks, who attended him there, and as regards Judgments and Orders in the Summary Jurisdiction Court by the Puisne Judge's Clerks. \n\nIn October, 1888, Lord Knutsford informed Sir William Des Voeux \n\nHis Honour \nThe Chief Justice. \n\nthat", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-334 - Governor Nathan - 1906 [5-7].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 404975, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-334 - Governor Nathan - 1906 [5-7]", "page_number": 170, "title": "CO129-334 - Governor Nathan - 1906 [5-7]", "content_text": "166 \n\nIt appears that his attention had been called to the somewhat analogous positions occupied by the Clerks or Private Secretaries to Judges in Mauritius and in the three Eastern Colonies. In Mauritius and Ceylon they were on the Permanent Establishment entitled to pension, passage and leave on half-pay while in Hongkong and Singapore they were appointed by the Judges and were excluded from these privileges. The Secretary of State favoured the latter system but asked for the views of the Judges in Hongkong and of the Governor on the matter. The opinion of the Chief Justice Mr. (afterwards Sir) James Russell and the Puisne Judge Mr. (now Sir) Fielding Clarke and of the Acting Puisne Judge Mr. Wise was that Judges' Clerks should be placed on the permanent service of the Colony, the advantage to the public in having a man who knows the work of the Court being greater than the advantage derived from the Judge from employing a gentleman of his own selection.\n\nTo a suggestion of the Governor that they should be made Clerks of the Registrar, Mr. Justice Clarke pointed out that they could only usefully be employed in connection with that office to do the work they already did when attending on the Judges of making minutes of Judgments and Orders and pointed out that to legalize the practice in this respect the Code of Civil Procedure should be altered to allow this duty to be performed by a Clerk of the Court as well as by the Registrar and that the Chief Justice's and Puisne Judge's Clerks should be gazetted as Clerks of the Court. These recommendations were transmitted and supported by Sir William Des Voeux on 10th July, 1889, and approved by Lord Knutsford in a Despatch dated 19th February, 1890. Effect was duly given to them, the Judges' Clerks being gazetted Clerks of the Court on the 12th April, 1890, and these Clerks being given the same powers as the Registrar of making minutes of Judgments or Orders whether final or interlocutory by an Ordinance.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-334 - Governor Nathan - 1906 [5-7].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 405083, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-334 - Governor Nathan - 1906 [5-7]", "page_number": 278, "title": "CO129-334 - Governor Nathan - 1906 [5-7]", "content_text": "## Enclosure 2\n\n**CONFIDENTIAL**\n\n£ 0.274 23817\n\nRece \n\nTREG 2 JUL 06 \n\n**CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO THE EXECUTION OF THE CIVIL JUDGMENTS OF THE HONGKONG COURTS IN CHINA**\n\nNo. 1.\n\n23780 \n\nJUL 13 906) \n\n**HIS HONOUR THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR**\n\nSupreme Court, Hongkong, 7th July, 1905.\n\nSir, With reference to the letter I have already addressed to Your Excellency on the question of amending the law as to executing civil judgments by imprisonment, I beg to suggest that the matter be allowed to remain in abeyance for a short time. I have, since writing the letter, come across other articles of the Code of Civil Procedure which deal with cognate subjects, and it seems better that I should report to Your Excellency generally on the subject of civil procedure as it affects Chinese debtors. There is much in the law as it now stands which seems to me to require serious consideration.\n\n2. There is, however, one subject to which I propose to draw Your Excellency's attention at once, because the method of dealing with it, if my suggestion is approved, must necessarily be more complicated than an amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure. The question is whether greater facilities should not be obtained from the Chinese Government for executing the civil judgments of the Hongkong Courts, than is provided by Article 23 of the Treaty of Tientsin.\n\n3. The question of entering into conventions with foreign countries in order to obtain the mutual execution of judgments has for a long time engaged the attention of the Foreign Office, but it has so far not been found possible to deal finally with the subject. This, however, is no reason why the execution of Hongkong judgments in China should not be dealt with independently. The commerce of Hongkong, in so far as it is conducted with the Chinese, is subject to peculiar difficulties. There are a very great number of Chinamen carrying on business in the Colony; their native country lies within easy reach of them: and the moment the fraudulent intention enters their mind, the night-boat to Canton affords a speedy means for effecting a retreat, and evading the process of the Court.\n\n4. The absence of any certain means of obtaining execution of the judgments of the Courts of the Colony in China has led to another most unsatisfactory result. Chinese defendants, in a large number of cases, do not enter an appearance to writs of summons, allowing judgment to go by default. For a large part of their property is kept out of the Colony, and so no execution can be effected against it. This, however technical the subject may appear, must re-act on commerce in a most practical way; for a man who has no property in the Colony; who cares little whether a writ be served on him or not, naturally enters the more recklessly into engagements, which, if the result be unfavourable to him, he has not the slightest intention of performing.\n\n5. The proximity of Canton thus enables dishonest Chinamen to reduce to a nullity the process of the Courts, not merely by evading personal service of documents, but also by keeping the bulk of their property in, or by removing it to Canton. Plaintiffs obtain judgments which are practically useless, because they cannot obtain execution either in the Colony or in Canton.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-334 - Governor Nathan - 1906 [5-7].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 405090, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-334 - Governor Nathan - 1906 [5-7]", "page_number": 285, "title": "CO129-334 - Governor Nathan - 1906 [5-7]", "content_text": "## \n21. Now, applying Article 23 to this set of circumstances, we get the following result:--\n\nFirst, looking at the unpaid call as an ordinary debt irrespective of any legal procedure taken to enforce it: it seems to me to fall outside the provisions of the Article, for the debt is not a trade debt, and it is not, in many cases, incurred by a Chinaman who has repaired to Hongkong. Nor, secondly, can the Consul General's aid be invoked in respect of the \"balance order\"; for it is not, as shown above, a judgment: and \"the recovery of such debts\" has not been \"arranged for by the English Courts\". Therefore any attempt to recover calls from Chinese contributories must be preceded by judgment. Yet even here there is another difficulty. For, assuming that the Article includes judgments, it can only include them when they relate to trade debts incurred by natives of China who may have repaired to Hongkong: which brings me back to the original difficulty of the question. The problem to which I am endeavouring to get a solution here appears in its acutest form, for it has passed from the case of the individual to that of the community at large. For on companies much of the well-being of the Colony depends; and if the machinery for recovering calls from Chinese contributories is defective, it must re-act in the most prejudicial manner on all who are interested in the great public Companies started in the Colony, or who profit by their existence.\n\n22. I am not in favour of any change in the Companies Law specially directed against Chinese, and therefore do not recommend the suggestion contained in the first recommendation made by the Deputy Registrar—that Chinese should only be allowed to register Companies where the shares are fully paid up—which would, I think, be very arbitrary and contrary to the spirit of the Companies Law.\n\n23. In connection with this subject the Colonial Secretary refers to Article 4 of the McKay Treaty, which deals with Joint Stock Companies. It requires special attention. In the first place, it recognizes, what I have above insisted on, the immense importance of the Anglo-Chinese Company question; and unless the Article itself deals satisfactorily with the matter, it does itself furnish a powerful argument in favour of the question now under discussion being put on a more satisfactory basis.\n\nThe Article then lays down the following principles:--\n\n| Principle | Description |\n| --- | --- |\n| (a) | China recognizes the legality of all investments of Chinese subjects in non-Chinese companies, past, present, and future. |\n| (b) | China further appreciates the utmost importance of recognizing the perfect equality as far as mutual obligations are concerned, of all shareholders in such Companies, irrespective of nationality. |\n\nIn order to arrive at this result, China agrees that Chinese shareholders in British Companies \"shall be held to have accepted, by the very act of becoming shareholders, the Charter of Incorporation or Memorandum and Articles of Association\", and also the regulations made thereunder as interpreted by the British Courts.\n\n24. The exact meaning of this provision requires explanation. In paragraph 20 above, I referred to the fact that in the case of a foreigner, a contributory to the Company being abroad, the \"balance order\" is not equivalent to a judgment, but action must be brought in the usual way. The procedure must be begun by service of a Writ out of the jurisdiction under `Order XI` (rule 42 of the Hongkong Code of Civil Procedure). The question has been discussed in England whether the case of the contributory falls within the scope of `Order XI`, for if it does not, the action cannot be begun. The Court of Appeal has decided that it does: but for greater assurance, this question is definitely settled in Article 4 of the McKay Treaty. The result is that when in Hongkong we have to deal with Chinese contributories, the initial difficulty is disposed of, and judgment may be given by default if necessary. But then we are face to face with the old difficulty again, and recourse must be had to the Consul-General and to the old-fashioned procedure of Article 23 of the Treaty of Tientsin in order to obtain execution on the judgment: and to this, the Consul General may answer, as pointed out above, that there is here no trade debt, and no Chinaman repairing to Hongkong to trade.\n\n## \n25. It is much to be regretted that advantage was not taken of the negotiation in connection with the McKay Treaty to deal in Article IV exhaustively with the whole of the question of recovery of calls by the Hongkong Courts. Curiously enough, it does, however, provide a remedy, which is by recourse to the Chinese Courts. The \"Chinese Courts shall enforce compliance therewith [i.e., with the articles and regulations] by such Chinese shareholders if a suit to that effect be entered.\"\n\nThis, however, cannot be construed to oust the jurisdiction of the British Courts. But in the face of this provision in the McKay Treaty, what becomes of the Colonial Secretary's criticism that Chinese Magistrates are not only venal, but powerless to enforce their own orders in the face of hostile opposition of the population should the latter sympathize with the debtor; and the debtor has, of course, generally the sympathy of his fellow citizens? Coming newly to an office which has to deal judicially with Anglo-Chinese commercial relations, I should be tempted to say that the old idea expressed in the above sentence, with which we were all familiar in bye-gone days, had been deliberately swept away, and a new order of greater confidence in Chinese judicial methods had been inaugurated. I cannot otherwise understand the recognition in a Commercial Treaty concluded in 1902 of litigation conducted by a British Official (the Official Liquidator) in the Chinese Courts.\n\n26. This Article of the McKay Treaty, if it means anything, furnishes a powerful argument in favour of the change of procedure in ordinary actions which I am advocating.\n\n## The Official Receiver's Memorandum.\n\n27. This memorandum deals with the question as it affects Hongkong Bankruptcies.\n\nMr. Wakeman, in his official capacity, must necessarily have a large experience of the question, and he has given an account of an interview he has had with Mr. Scott, the present Consul General. The Colonial Secretary does not, I gather, challenge the accuracy of Mr. Wakeman's statement, but wishes to have Mr. Scott's version of the matter.\n\n28. With this suggestion, I cordially agree; no steps could possibly be taken without hearing what the Consul General has to say. I must point out, however, that Mr. Wakeman's minute is of great importance, as it brings out in a startling way these salient defects of the present system:--\n\n| Defect | Description |\n| --- | --- |\n| (a) | That the Official Receiver representing the mass of the creditors of a bankrupt cannot get the benefit of Article 23 of the Tientsin Treaty. |\n| (b) | That the interpretation put upon the Article by the Consul General is that it applies only to British subjects, and then only to individual creditors; that is to say, that each creditor must apply personally to the Consul General to get the benefit of the Article. |\n| (c) | That the Consul-General considers himself empowered to administer a sort of independent bankruptcy in Canton, distributing the Chinese assets among such British creditors as have, illegally, as I think, put the Consul General in motion. |\n| (d) | Lastly, there is the statement that the German firms find greater facilities from the Chinese officials for attaching debtors' property in China than can be obtained by British subjects. |\n\n29. Mr. Wakeman gives this information under reservation: and I think that his statement alone is sufficient to justify a searching enquiry into the whole question. It cannot be disposed of by merely indicating that foreigners' creditors are backed in all their actions by their Government, and that apparently British \n## \nPage 15 \n## \nPage 14", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-334 - Governor Nathan - 1906 [5-7].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 405092, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-334 - Governor Nathan - 1906 [5-7]", "page_number": 287, "title": "CO129-334 - Governor Nathan - 1906 [5-7]", "content_text": "# \n18 \n\nbefore the debtor left, and that as his address was known in Canton, it was not a case of absconding, and that the proper course was for the plaintiff to take proceedings personally (I assume that this means without the Consul General's intervention) before the Chinese Courts. \n\n43. As this was a debt which had not been sued for in the Hongkong Courts no possible objection can be taken to the decision as an interpretation of the Article. But the objection arises from the fact that, apparently, the same limited interpretation of \"absconding\" would seem to be applied in the case of judgments—at least there is no trace of any other rule. This therefore limits the Consular assistance in the case of judgment creditors to cases where the debtor absconds immediately after judgment, and where the address in China is not known. I assume of course that the Consul General in the case of a judgment creditor would not enquire in the same way into the absconding with regard to the original debt. \n\n44. If the interpretation of the Consular rules is correct, a very large number of judgments do not fall within the scope of the Article. Among them the principal classes are judgments by default against absent defendants who have no property in Hongkong, or who have removed it. The mere statement of the case shows that the Article as interpreted by the Consul General with the approval of the Government is lamentably deficient. I have already shown that, even with the widest interpretation it is still deficient. \n\n45. I must note before passing to another subject, that the advice given by the Consul General [in `M. P. 4203 of 1905`] was not in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure of Hongkong. The obvious course for the applicant to take was to sue in the Hongkong Courts, obtaining leave to issue a writ against the non-resident defendant in Canton under section \n\n46. It is unnecessary to elaborate this point at any greater length. The fact is patent that while, under Article 23, some relief is afforded by the Consular intervention in the case of some trade debts, unnecessary restrictions are imposed in the way of affording similar relief in the same limited number of cases where the creditor has obtained judgment; but that judgment creditors as a class do not get any special relief at all. I am of opinion that it is absolutely essential to provide such relief. \n\n47. In my first letter I said that \"the absence of any effective protection to judgment creditors must be to react prejudicially on commerce; for a man who has no property in the Colony, who cares little whether a writ be served on him or not, naturally enters the more recklessly into engagements, which if the result be unfavourable to him, he has not the slightest intention of performing.\" \n\nMy experience of the Courts in the Colony has not been long; but it has been sufficiently long to enable me to add with absolute certainty, that there is a large class of Chinese traders in the Colony who carry on their business on lines admirably adapted to the deficiencies of the legal system based on Article 23: who go on so long as there is profit or hope of profit, who bring very little property into the Colony, and send out of the Colony as much as they make to the security of Canton; and who put up their shutters and go so soon as things appear to be turning against them. \n\n48. The minute of the learned Attorney General covers so much of the same ground as that of the Colonial Secretary, more especially where he says \"it is difficult to conceive what more can be done in the direction of providing for the execution in China of the judgments of the Hongkong Courts than is provided in the 23rd Article.\" This point has already been fully dealt with. I did not of course intend to propose that \"a Hongkong judgment should be forthwith executed in China by a Bailiff of the Supreme Court.\" \n\nIn the paragraph of this minute which deals with the proposal that the practice should be amended by substituting a request from the Supreme Court to the Chinese Court to execute a judgment, the learned Attorney General has, I think, misconceived the scope of any suggestion, which is that some means should be provided by which all judgments can be more readily executed than they are now. The first step in such procedure should be the issuing by the Supreme Court on the application of the judgment creditor of a request that the judgment, a sealed copy of which would be attached, be addressed to the proper Court of the district in China where execution is required (Article 4 of the McKay Treaty recognizes the existence of proper Courts in China; see para. 25 above.) There would not be the slightest objection, in fact it would be better, that this request should be presented through the diplomatic channel of the Consul General. Further, this request in the hands of the judgment creditor, issuing from the Supreme Court, would itself be sufficient guarantee that the claim was originally, and is afterwards, put forward in good faith. \n\n1 \n\nIn the penultimate paragraph which begins \"The British Consul it appears convinces me that on further consideration the learned Attorney General will share my views; for he alludes to the practice of ordinary creditors applying for assistance to the Consul General as if it were exceptional, and not, as it now appears, the almost universal rule: and he also, as I do myself, dwells on the importance of there being in all cases a judgment of the Court. \n\nWith regard to the penultimate paragraph which deals with the alleged action of foreign Consuls interfering with Hongkong bankruptcies, I agree that if it is true, it indicates \"diligence or diplomatic influence on the part of the foreign creditors or their Consuls superior to that displayed by the British\". But as I have pointed out, it is in many cases illegal, in all unfair, and it is one which could well be adjusted by concerted action, such as in many other cases has arranged international difficulties which react to the prejudice of British subjects. \n\nI proceed now to state my proposals: it being well understood that I give the details in broad outline only, leaving them to be filled in hereafter. \n\nAs I have already indicated the fundamental change which I propose should be made in Article 23 is that the Chinese Government should grant all the assistance in their power to aid in execution of all civil judgments of the Hongkong Courts. \n\nIf it be thought advisable still to retain the recovery for debts for which no action has been brought, the new provision could be treated as supplementary to, or explanatory of, Article 23. \n\nThe procedure to be adopted would be an application to the Judge in Chambers for a certified copy of the judgment, supported by affidavit setting out the reasons for the application, the existence of property in China to the best of the applicant's information and belief, together with its nature and position, and the probability of recovering it. The Court would then issue a letter of request to the Chinese Court (probably of the district in which the property is alleged to exist) to which the certified copy of the judgment would be attached. The party should then have the right to forward these documents to the Consul General, by himself or his solicitor, who would then forward them to the Chinese Court for action. \n\nIt would be distinctly understood in the stipulations of the new Article that the Chinese Court should act promptly, and that no defence or dilatory plea should be allowed. \n\nThe article should specially include the recovery of debts due to estates in bankruptcy, on the application of the Official Receiver. \n\nIt should also extend to calls against contributories in winding up companies, the liability to pay them being established by a judgment of the Court. \n\nLastly, efforts should be made to induce the other Powers to join in the agreement, so far as their own subjects are concerned who are resident or carry on business in Hongkong, and are parties to the judgment. \n\nF. T. PIGGOTT. \n\n283", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-334 - Governor Nathan - 1906 [5-7].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 405095, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-334 - Governor Nathan - 1906 [5-7]", "page_number": 290, "title": "CO129-334 - Governor Nathan - 1906 [5-7]", "content_text": "# \n\n24 \n\nAs Your Excellency points out, such concessions could not be acceded to: and I think it is clear that if the question of revision were raised the result would be endless discussions leading nowhere, which would delay, and perhaps indefinitely postpone, the accomplishment of the much-needed reforms which I have in view. I am therefore in entire agreement with Your Excellency that it would be better to consider how far these reforms may be arrived at by other means, and for the present, at least, to be content with this.\n\n3. The first point on which Your Excellency desires information is as to whether it is advisable, should my proposals be adopted, to allow the old procedure to continue, under which Consular assistance is given to persons in Hongkong to bring their claims before the Chinese Courts or authorities when they have not sued them in the Courts of the Colony. The rules which govern the practice are set out in paras. 14 to 20 of Mr. MAY's Minute. They do not seem to have been very carefully thought out, but are, so far as I can see, derived from the action which has been taken on different cases as they have arisen. I gather from them that where the person alleging himself to be a creditor is a British subject not of Chinese race, the Consul General assists him, after a preliminary investigation, by pressing the claim before the Chinese Authorities, the interposition of the Chinese Courts not being required.\n\n4. This procedure seems to me to be open to many objections in addition to those mentioned in my previous Minute. One of them needs specially to be emphasised. If Great Britain sanctions the non-judicial interference of our Consuls in the recovery of debts we cannot object to the interference of the Consuls of other nationalities for a similar purpose; and it may then become a race in which the quickest or most pertinacious Consul wins. This question, as I have pointed out, is of great importance in Bankruptcy, and may give rise to complications should the Hongkong Courts subsequently be called upon to protect the bankrupt's estate for the benefit of the creditors generally. It may not be without importance in civil proceedings.\n\n5. I gather further that the privilege of Consular assistance is given to British subjects of Chinese race only subject to conditions more or less dependent on an uncertain, and it would seem varying, interpretation of the language of Article 23. In some cases it would appear that the claimant is required to go before the Chinese Courts. The reason for this distinction between British subjects of, and not of Chinese race is not very apparent. Para. 18 of Mr. MAY's Minute gives an explanation which can hardly be called sufficient or satisfactory.\n\n6. I gather lastly from para. 6 of Mr. MAY's Minute that these conditions apply also to foreigners. I presume therefore that it is thought proper for the British Consul to take up the claim of a foreigner resident in Hongkong who has not sued it before the Courts of the Colony.\n\n7. In accordance with the wish expressed in para. 7 of Your Excellency's letter, I have ascertained in a confidential manner the views of the profession on the question whether this old procedure should be allowed to continue side by side with the new practice should it be adopted. It is clear to me, both from the letters I have received from some of the Solicitors, and also from conversations I have had with others and with the two King's Counsel, that although they are thoroughly dissatisfied with the present state of affairs, the majority of them think that it might be inconvenient to abolish the existing procedure. Mr. BOWLEY, the Crown Solicitor, has written a very cogent memorandum advocating its abolition. I am in complete accord with much that he says: but after giving the matter my best attention, I have come to the conclusion that, for the present at least, the more important object to attain is the introduction of the improved methods for invoking the assistance of the Chinese Authorities, and that the old procedure may be left to take care of itself. In this connexion I must not omit to note that the old procedure would certainly be useful in cases in which, the cause of action not falling within the provisions of Section 42 of the `Code of Civil Procedure (Order XI of the English Rules)`, action could not be brought in the Hongkong Courts. It seems to me doubtful however whether in such cases it is expedient for Consular assistance to be given except for the purpose of pressing the Chinese Courts to hear the case speedily should suit be brought before them.\n\n- 23 - \n\n8. I proceed now to consider the procedure to be adopted should my suggestions be approved.\n\nIf, as Your Excellency suggests, it were thought better to eliminate the formal request by the Hongkong Court to the Chinese Court, I should not press for its retention. Some formal document should issue from this Court on the application of the judgment creditor, and a \"letter of request\" would seem to be the most convenient procedure to adopt. But the form of the order is a matter which may be settled hereafter. The important question which Your Excellency puts to me is, what instructions are to be given to His Majesty's Consuls?\n\nI think the instructions should be to the following effect:\n\nOn receipt of the necessary documents (to be precisely defined according to the procedure ultimately adopted), either from the judgment creditor or his Solicitor, the Consul is to make such representations as he may deem necessary to the proper Authorities in China requesting them to enforce the judgment, a copy of which, together with a translation duly certified by the Court Translator, is to be handed to them. He is to point out that the debt, or other matter in dispute, has been arranged for by the Hongkong Courts (using the Chinese equivalent for this expression as in the Treaty) as required by Article 23. In the event of enquiries being made or proposed by the Chinese Authorities, the Consul should insist that they are to be limited to questions of identity of the judgment debtor, and to the existence or non-existence of property belonging to him. Enquiries into the merits of the case should be discountenanced, and if they are insisted on, representations should be made to the Viceroy. In such event the Consul should point out that justice has already been done between the parties by the judgment of the Court.\n\nIf however the application to enforce the judgment is made within the appealable delay (6 months in Original Jurisdiction), and any question is raised as to the merits of the judgment, the Consul should point out that the remedy is by way of appeal to the Full Court of Hongkong. But if he is satisfied that no appeal is contemplated he should insist on execution of the judgment.\n\nIf the judgment has been obtained by default, and it is alleged that the judgment debtor was never served with the writ, or was ignorant of the proceedings, the Consul should point out that the procedure which has been followed is that prescribed by the Hongkong `Code of Civil Procedure`, and has been acted on with the sanction of the Court: and further that the principles on which this procedure is based are recognised and adopted in Great Britain and throughout the Empire; but that if the debtor thinks that he has a defence, the Code (s. 302) enables him to take steps to set aside the judgment and submit the merits of his case to the Court. The Consul should in such a case recommend the debtor to put himself into communication with a firm of Solicitors in Hongkong. Should the debtor refuse to do this, execution of the judgment should be insisted on.\n\nThe Consuls themselves should be informed that the fact of the judgment having been given relieves them of the necessity of making any enquiries into the merits of the case, and is the best guarantee they can have that justice has been done between the parties. Further, they should be instructed not to enquire whether it is a case of \"bona fide absconding\", nor to consider whether in their opinion the case falls within the precise terms of Article 28, and finally, that the application is made by the Solicitor of the judgment creditor is sufficient guarantee of his identity.\n\nThe Consuls should further be informed that the new procedure applies to all judgments of the Hongkong Courts, of whatever nature, and that it includes judgments for costs. Their attention should also be called to the changes in the Bankruptcy and Company laws, should they be carried into effect.\n\nAny money, or other thing, received from the Chinese Court or Authority should be transmitted direct to the party making the application, or to his Solicitor if the application is made by a Solicitor.\n\n286", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-334 - Governor Nathan - 1906 [5-7].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 405096, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-334 - Governor Nathan - 1906 [5-7]", "page_number": 291, "title": "CO129-334 - Governor Nathan - 1906 [5-7]", "content_text": "## 9. The question of judgments recovered by foreigners or by persons of Chinese race, not British subjects, is a difficult one to deal with, and I do not think that any advantage would result if I were now to add anything to what I have already said, leaving it to be considered after a decision has been come to on the main question. I have however been informed by a Solicitor in large practice that it is the custom, when a judgment has been obtained by a foreign client in Hongkong, for the Solicitor to address the foreign Consul direct, and to obtain the assistance of the Chinese Authorities through him. It may be that this practice points to the solution of the difficulty: subject only to this, that the action of the foreign Consuls should be made dependent on international arrangement.\n\n10. **BANKRUPTCY**.-It remains to be seen whether any legislative steps can be taken to bring the practice in Bankruptcy into line with the suggested civil procedure—para. 9 of Your Excellency's letter—so as to enable the Official Receiver to recover property belonging to the bankrupt in China.\n\nThe debtor's property may be roughly divided into two classes: 1st, that actually belonging to the debtor, and 2nd, debts due to the debtor by other people. I think that a paragraph on the following lines, added to Section 19 (1) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance, No. 7 of 1891, will be sufficient for all purposes:--\n\n| Clause | Description |\n| --- | --- |\n| | \"And for the more efficient recovery of the bankrupt's property in China for this purpose the Court shall, on the motion of the Trustee, enter judgment against the bankrupt for the collective amount of the debts proved or provable in the bankruptcy and such judgment shall in all respects, whether in regard to execution or to any other matter, be of the same effect as a judgment entered in a civil action: and the Trustee shall further be entitled to move for judgment against the several debtors to the estate on proof of the bankrupt's claim against them, subject however to the right of such debtors to move for leave to set aside such judgment and to come in to defend, within such time as the Court may allow.\" |\n\n11. **WINDING UP OF COMPANIES**.--A paragraph on the following lines, if added to Section 149 of the Companies Ordinance, No. 1 of 1865, will in like manner meet the case of the contributories to companies, dealt with in paragraph 10 of Your Excellency's letter:-\n\n| Clause | Description |\n| --- | --- |\n| | \"Such order (i.e., an order for winding up a company) shall be made in the form of a judgment, and shall in all respects be equivalent to and executable as a judgment of the Court in civil matters: and for this purpose the judgment may be given against any number of contributories, but shall be effective only against each contributory for the amount set opposite his name.\" |\n\n## 11\n\nIn connexion with this amendment, and in order to meet at once a criticism which may be advanced against it—that it does away with the necessity of bringing an action against a contributory abroad (under `Section 42` of the Code of Civil Procedure) which the English Courts have insisted upon—I should point out that this question is concluded by Article 4 of the McKay Treaty, which settles against the contributory any question which he might raise as to the cause of action not falling within the terms of that section. (See p. 24 of my Memorandum of 26th August, 1905.)\n\n12. Before concluding this letter, there are two points which have been suggested to me which it is desirable to notice. First: Article 23 of the Treaty requires the Chinese Authorities in concert with the British Consul \"to see justice done between the parties\". The suggestion is that the enquiries by the Consul even when a judgment has been obtained may perhaps be justified on the ground that justice may require them to be made. I do not think it is necessary to say more than this: Where judgment has been obtained in the Courts of Hongkong it is not admissible to suppose that the interests of justice would be furthered by a subsequent non-judicial enquiry by the Consul. I have specially referred to this point in the suggested instructions to the Consuls.\n\nSecondly—It has been suggested that possibly Article 22 of the Treaty, either by itself, or with a slight modification, might meet the case.\n\n## 27\n\nArticle 22 is as follows: - \"Should any Chinese subject fail to discharge debts incurred to a British subject, or should he fraudulently abscond, the Chinese Authorities will do their utmost to effect his arrest and enforce recovery of the debts. The British Authorities will likewise do their utmost to bring to justice any British subject fraudulently absconding or failing to discharge debts incurred by him to a Chinese subject\".\n\nFrom the position of this Article, immediately before the one dealing with Chinese repairing to Hongkong and incurring debts there, I am disposed to think that, so far as debts incurred by Chinese subjects are concerned, it relates exclusively to Chinese subjects in China who incur debts to British subjects in China. If however the Article has a wider scope, it would be better that the instructions I have suggested should be stated to be issued under Articles 22 and 23.\n\n13. I venture to think that the case is now ripe for considered action.\n\nI have, &c.,\n\nF. T. PIGGOTT.\n\n## 287", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-334 - Governor Nathan - 1906 [5-7].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 410061, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-341 - Acting Governor May Governor Lugard - 1907 [7-10]", "page_number": 407, "title": "CO129-341 - Acting Governor May Governor Lugard - 1907 [7-10]", "content_text": "402\n\nTON\n\n14\n\nINANMARIAZIA Istoeqe A. admor, buį, to frereozotne Isoonąłoər\n\nmort elsntuixo to notitbertze of brager d+lw aðalze yo erla\n\nythoongbook (138) to I .ok eanenth10 998) osoni od ynolod #iy+\n\nyd bewans t emreang I ‚anted rotten afst at\n\n.Isputros 5na mtatt¬ä tes\") neowded ytser molt17-\n\n-8TİXE Istano¬\n\nاطرم\n\n+\n\nI sigrie woy at nas\"ber tot aasɔ n\n\n.A\n\nbrspor da by rubuszonen vnd denset tren de ti otul eno\" etait\n\nstate of ns. shed erom ob od visua908nm at St bra, noting of\n\nof webex od be fleqron FR I *t yatatafqpen mi\n\n^Y #1\n\nAzobresto seneynaq Sgan riders rent agtranet\n\nէ : t 70\n\nsaso erit ul vrugasne vitame el where a dus postem edd nk\n\nnd atɗab J$LOUT.90 wheld to treing equoɑe of emesqon vit.\n\natave Isrətli roborok to rotou nfu\n\nbevenom,atehend-non bon prehend,anuanis [e to nosebo bu\n\nredna o.wwigent on the emon orie\n\nA\n\nJONE Tore: bred bus wornod,anottumenant Inlovermoo onl\n\nod she deshita arit qatrai tuo laiv‚abub Tra o accity,Ido\n\nof merit of dentinveoo at ** nod ynoloù end rt meid qaer\n\nmit ni bertolmok aan merit to notérogong fama mey Angel\n\nentenoqat bil eldstongest wilt no medrair ORTAÍ A JUnofob\n\nsie Jud、otsit veranong blodsuse! wo bedrol-easick o\n\ndeku anaing vibrat?” 15 9.0 mg:It foe*^6 ton asof moldear\n\now nottefrqoq sacht/0 and to noftrogota totcem art\n\n+\n\nbrary\n\n*Ind on osex sette ore brezegong #Idenyom vĺno caserŐT\n\naqete erit et offront party +1 SVOME \"O Prof00 g to do ti o\n\nmoqo en adquod quo .nometeth edt et amnof time wol anteof a to\n\nIstothrt to tmurons aidsmehlomon ♬ erueroo vert bre,refit od\n\nebal* **Iltek edo mand deniese aaon trommbel, marw te% .omit\n\nromo to notticom eft eunal não nottunaxe dotriw no nebiton\n\nbre ero and no notre, rittweidettiq tromle at tooreman eind of\n\nend to Jibero sit o bruober JornвD IT .1anto ant no onont\n\natt det oganida ent to save art at ynofo and to quod smarau?\n\nVIPORT & garl namenian art .babave vilnes ce ad mao atremmbut\n\nཀཱཏུ*\n\nfor perceiving the weak spots of our system and is not slow\n\nto avail himself of it.\n\n6.\n\nI may refer, though it is a side issue, to\n\nan inevitable consequence of the present state of affairs. The\n\nCode of Civil Procedure allows not only imprisonment by way of\n\nexecution of judgment, but also imprisonment on \"meme process\"\n\nthat is, at the very commencement of the proceedings, where\n\nabsconding or removal of property is suspected. I have done my\n\nbest to minimize the cases in which I make the necessary orders\n\nin this behalf; but I have at last reluctantly come to see the\n\nforce of the arguments of the legal profession, and have\n\nrealized the necessity of enforcing the letter of the law with\n\nthe utmost strictness,\n\n7.\n\nThe question is, I can assure Your Excel-\n\n-lency, a most urgent one, and I trust that it will receive\n\nsympathetic consideration at Your Excellency's hands. I would\n\nventure to suggest that much valuable information could be\n\nobtained from the Chamber of Commerce and the Law Society of\n\nHongkong.\n\n8.\n\nI take this opportunity of referring again\n\nto the question of Canton. I have devoted a great deal of time\n\nto making the necessity for action plain. At first difficulties\n\nwere suggested by the Minister at Pekin, and the Secretary of\n\nState for Foreign Affairs did not think it advisable to proceed\n\nfurther, except possibly in the matter of Bankruptcy. After the\n\ndespatch was communicated to me I had an opportunity of dis-\n\n-cussing the matter with Sir Havilland de Saumarez, Judge of\n\nthe Supreme Court at Shanghai, and made certain proposals to\n\nhim. He in his turn discussed them with Mr. Hansfield, Consul-\n\n-General at Canton. The result was that we saw our way to\n\nintroduce certain reforms in the procedure with regard to a\n\ncertain class of judgments (those given in actions in which the defendant had appeared) which would have been a great boon to the commercial community of the Colony. Beyond a comunica-\n\n-tion", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-341 - Acting Governor May Governor Lugard - 1907 [7-10].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 412925, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-345 - Public Offices & Foreign Office - 1907", "page_number": 685, "title": "CO129-345 - Public Offices & Foreign Office - 1907", "content_text": "# READING, 12 April, 1907\n\nI regard it as disgusting scheming affliction for a king. He was CJ, but he is not good enough. He has been retired for some years. I should send a discouraging note to Cox.\n\nSir Kentons,\n\nI desire to ask that you will be so good as to bring under the notice of the Secretary of State certain special services which were performed by me during my tenure of office under the Crown in various Colonies and which are described in a Memorandum attached hereto.\n\n2. It may, I am aware, be said that regard was had to these services in the promotions which I received from time to time in the Colonial Civil Service. But on this view of the matter I would respectfully beg leave to make one or two observations. In the first place, promotion is generally granted to an Officer for the faithful and efficient performance of his duties in the ordinary course. I may mention that in the year in which I left the service, viz. 1902, three Attorneys General were severally promoted to be Chief Justice in their respective Colonies, viz.: Ceylon, Hongkong, and British Guiana, and, so far as I know, none of them had performed voluntary and prolonged special services such as those described in the Memorandum. And in any case I wish to point out that the services mentioned in paragraphs 6, 7, and 8 of the Memorandum, namely, the preparation of the Hongkong Bills, the drafting and settlement of the Hongkong Code of Civil Procedure, and the preparation of the new and revised edition ...\n\nThe Under Secretary of State, \nColonial Office, \nDowning Street, \nLONDON. S.W.\n\nPage 363 \nThe 660 Rest 23 APP 07", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-345 - Public Offices & Foreign Office - 1907.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 412929, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-345 - Public Offices & Foreign Office - 1907", "page_number": 689, "title": "CO129-345 - Public Offices & Foreign Office - 1907", "content_text": "## 9 \nFor none of these services did I ask or receive any pecuniary reward or compensation, though it is proper to mention that, in the cases of the two British Guiana services, I was on full salary for the whole or greater part of the time during which they were being performed. With the exceptions mentioned below, all the services were performed while I was on leave of absence in England. The exceptions are the drafting of the Bills, the revision and completion of the **Code of Civil Procedure**, and the earlier part of the work on the **Hongkong Ordinances**, which were all carried through in Hongkong. The middle and later portions of this last-mentioned work were performed while I was on leave in Japan and in England and after my retirement in England. These various services have filled up the time of every long leave that I have had as an officer of the above-mentioned Colonial Governments. Apart from the periods of leave so occupied, the only leave that I had during my 23 years of service was as follows: about five months in 1881-2 on account of the illness of my wife there in England and my own subsequent illness from typhoid fever; about ten days in 1883 on account of the illness and death of my mother in Barbados; and about five weeks in 1891 on account of the illness and death of my brother in Barbados.\n\n- 3 -", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-345 - Public Offices & Foreign Office - 1907.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 412930, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-345 - Public Offices & Foreign Office - 1907", "page_number": 690, "title": "CO129-345 - Public Offices & Foreign Office - 1907", "content_text": "## 10.\n\nIt is proper to remark that in the case of the Tobago Statute law revision, the whole body of the local Ordinances was re-drafted and arranged under appropriate heads. In the cases of the other Colonies, the work of revision did not consist in merely reprinting the Ordinances then in force, but involved the exercise of large powers of formal alteration and amendment and of consolidation of Ordinances in pari materiâ.\n\n## 11.\nIn the case of each revision, provision was made by a special Ordinance drafted by myself, for the preparation and printing of the new and revised edition. By this Ordinance, my powers as Commissioner were clearly defined. I have reason to believe that in several Colonies where Statute law revision has taken place in recent years, this Ordinance has been more or less closely followed as a model, and the revision has proceeded on the lines laid down by it.\n\n## 12.\nTo anyone who is acquainted at all with statute law revision, it will be evident that these services required the exercise of great care and discretion and were carried out only at the cost of prolonged and arduous labour. With the exception of the work in connection with the Hongkong Bills, they were all performed under the direct sanction of the Secretary of State.\n\n## 13.\nThe particulars of the principal services to which I have now ventured to call attention are contained in the Schedule attached hereto. From this, it appears that these Services extended over a period of nearly three years entirely occupied and of five years partially occupied with their performance, and that the result of them was the virtual reconstruction of the Statute Books of four Colonies, consisting of 10 volumes of more than 7500 pages, and the remodelling of the civil procedure of one of those Colonies in a Code consist-\n\n4 - \nPage 690\nPage 691", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-345 - Public Offices & Foreign Office - 1907.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 414552, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-348 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1908 [7-10]", "page_number": 463, "title": "CO129-348 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1908 [7-10]", "content_text": "# Attorney-General's Chambers, Hongkong, 19 September 1908.\n\nSir,\n\nIn pursuance of the request contained in the Secretary of State's Despatch to the Governor No. 168 of the 5th August, I have the honour to submit a report on the status of the Registrar of the Supreme Court in relation to the contention of the Chief Justice in regard to it.\n\n## 1.\n\nThe duties of the Registrar of the Supreme Court may be classed under the following heads:-\n\n(a). Duties which pertain solely to the work and curriculum of the Supreme Court.\n\n(b). Statutory duties conferred on him by Ordinance in which he is subject to the immediate control and direction of the Court.\n\n(c). Statutory duties conferred on him by Ordinance which are distinct and irrespective of his duties as Registrar of the Supreme Court and in regard to which the Court exercises no direct control or surveillance.\n\n## 12.\n\nIn regard to (a) these duties are set out in paragraph 5 of the Governor's Despatch No. 154 to the Secretary of State of 5th June, 1908, but I will recapitulate them in brief:\n\nAttendance in Court or Judges' Chambers when required, the general routine work of the Registry of the Supreme Court delegated to the Registrar by the Code of Civil Procedure 1901 in all matters relating to Actions, Interlocutory Proceedings, Distraints, Taxation of Costs etc.\n\nIt is clear in so far as these duties are concerned that they are ministerial and that the Registrar is amenable to the directions and control of the Chief Justice.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-348 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1908 [7-10].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 417851, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-353 - Public Offices - 1908", "page_number": 563, "title": "CO129-353 - Public Offices - 1908", "content_text": "Enclosure 3 in Mp Fose's despatch of\n\nOct. 9. 1908.\n\n559 42629\n\nMIRORANIUM.\n\nDEC 7 1000\n\nThe Acting Consul-General will, I am sure, forgive me pointing out that any question as to the jurisdiction of the Hongkong Court is one which it is for the Judges of the Court to determine; if the exercise of it is challenged it can only be by defendant. The jurisdiction of the Hongkong Court extends to Chinese in China, as it does to Frenchmen in Saigon or Japanese in Japan, in certain cases defined by section 42 of the Code of Civil Procedure; subject only to the limitation contained in Ordinance 1 of 1851. It is not in any sense limited by the provisions of Art. 23 of the Treaty of Tientsin. I suppose half a dozen writs are issued every month for service or attempted service on Chinese in Canton; most of them being served by the Solicitors themselves. When however any difficulty is likely to arise recourse has to be had to the good offices of the Consul-General, under clause 29 of the China and Corea Order in Council, 1904. The Acting Consul-General will find a recent instance of this in the correspondence in connection with the case of Watson and Co. v. the Yuen Kwong Wo Firms and others. I would point out", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-353 - Public Offices - 1908.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 417855, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-353 - Public Offices - 1908", "page_number": 567, "title": "CO129-353 - Public Offices - 1908", "content_text": "563\n\n42\n\ndefined by section X of the Code of Civil Procedure, subject only to the limitation contained in Ordinance 1 of 1861*.\n\nWhile I do not for one moment question His Honour's right to be the sole judge on all questions of his jurisdiction over both Chinese and British subjects within the Colony of Hongkong, I am quite unable to accept his ruling that his jurisdiction extends to Chinese subjects in the Empire of China. I do not see how the provisions of the Hongkong Code of Civil Procedure or of a Hongkong Ordinance (His Honour is, I think, referring to Ordinance No. 2 of 1851 and not to No. 1) can be made applicable to Chinese subjects in China.\n\nIn the case of British subjects in China it has been found necessary to determine and define British jurisdiction by an Order in Council. In the case of Chinese subjects I know of no Treaty, Convention or Agreement between Great Britain and China whereby the latter have consented to a British Court of Law, even if established on Chinese soil, exercising jurisdiction over Chinese subjects.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-353 - Public Offices - 1908.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 418500, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-355 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [1-3]", "page_number": 78, "title": "CO129-355 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [1-3]", "content_text": "11\n\nA\n\nhur Ruislay\n\nthe\n\nLo writing\n\nSa that\n\n9\n\nfour\n\n后\n\nprovide\n\narme\n\n7-0. t\n\nthe sys\n\nThe\n\nC\n\nOn\n\nрабронед\n\nwill instruct.\n\nmuft\n\nな\n\nCa\n\nthat the C.J.gH.K\n\nof the Judge of Shanghai will\n\nТибу\n\nproside, according to seniority of appointment.\n\nThe 7.0 says that the arrangement is\n\nin the first instance of the persons &c.\n\nH. Saumarez, but I suppose\n\ncan stand.\n\nthe matter\n\nJudge\n\nis contained\n\nof the arrangement\n\n와\n\nthey will be made. If it isn't the\n\noffice will\n\nbe Dodder 4/3\n\nна Сож\n\nI conceive\n\nhave the repeated.\n\nBY26.\n\nthe above minutes, except possibly\n\nto appeals from Wei-hai-Wei, which might, I think, continue to be to the Supreme Court for Hongkong.\n\nI\n\nfor Consideration them before the new Court of Appeal (3 judges) Knowing (it's appeals before such and the 2 H.K. judges both of whom will, I suppose, dispose\n\nThere is not the same reason\n\nfor this as to the courts\n\nis in the opinion of the oftoman\n\n-$58.\n\n77 now) in which Full Court\" shall continue to mean the C.J and\n\nin accordance with\n\nP. J.\n\nhow to be called the Divisional Court the intention of Sec 4 of this Bill\n\nwas however,\n\nsecs 14 (2/9/3) infra, which seems to show that there was such provision in the Code as I have suggested\n\nabove.\n\nBut I should not have thought that both sec 5 and sec 14 (2) of\n\nwere necessary\n\nThis vests certain appropriate proceedings in the existing Full Court-\n\nin the Divisional Court.\n\nprovided as follows:-\n\nThe procedure for these appeals\n\nis\n\nfor (a) by Sec 13\n\ninfra\n\nG\n\n} by subsecs (2) (3) of this Sec 8.\n\n+\n\n(5)\n\nI see no\n\nobjection to the section\n\nPreserves the status quo as to appeals from magistrates\n\nThis is explained by sec 15 (4) infra, which makes the Shanghai\n\nJudge\n\nmember of the Supreme Court of H. Kong.\n\nH.\n\nSecs.\n\nSec 14/2/967). Vide Supra, under Secs 5.\n\nLuiz and \"Ordinance\"\n\nExplained by Secs 15(4)\n\nI am not sure that it would not be better to\n\nwrite to F. Pierotti, to F.O_ I grant that he is hostile to this scheme, but we can discount\n\nhostility, and\n\nI think that his knowledge of\n\nthe local laws or practice (which must necessarily be\n\nmuch greater than ours) may be of use in detecting\n\nerrors or omissions\n\nin the tinkering with the Sup.\n\nCourt and Civil Procedure Code which\n\n§ is the Divisional Court as defined\n\nsec 15(3.\n\nSec 15(1)\n\nSec 15/2/+67\n\nas\n\nthere is for\n\ntribunal;\n\nJapan\n\nf\n\nof Wei-hai-Wei appeals to writ\n\nof this course is adopted\n\nMause contò la added\n\nX\n\nto the off already on the subject and we shall avoid\n\nhaving to amend the Wei-hai-Wei Ord.\n\n5265. This is obviously, all right so\n\nfar as chap XXVIII\n\nis concerned,\n\nof the Code (\"Appeals to the Full Court\")\n\nand I should have thought, but that the application of\n\nso limited.\n\nthis section seems to have been\n\nThere may be possible objections\n\nX\n\nLat\n\nMere omission of §12 (3)\n\nwith amendments\n\nof Sec 7(2)\n\nthe Code (which\n\nI have not time to examine extensively great\n\nausat\n\nappear from my\n\nnotes made.\n\nucinati\n\non\n\nSecs 5, man quili possible\n\nJR. 2/3\n\nas will\n\nL\n\nb.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-355 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [1-3].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 418502, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-355 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [1-3]", "page_number": 80, "title": "CO129-355 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [1-3]", "content_text": "Enclosures\n\nA B II, I\n\nC.O.\n\n6733\n\n79\n\nIREC\n\nTRES\n\nTo amend the constitution of the Supreme Court of Judicature of the Colony in so far as its Appellate Jurisdiction is concerned, and to effect certain amendments in the Ordinance of the Colony consequent thereon.\n\nWhereas it is expedient to amend the constitution of the Supreme Court of Judicature of the Colony by providing for the appointment of an additional Judge to sit in certain appeal cases and to effect other amendments in the Ordinance of the Colony in relation to the hearing of appeal cases.\n\nBe it enacted by the Governor of Hongkong, with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council thereof, as follows:-\n\nShort title and construction.\n\n1. This Ordinance may be cited as \"The Supreme Court Amendment Ordinance 1909\" and shall be read and construed as one with The Supreme Court Ordinance 1873.\n\nCourt of Appeal constituted.\n\n2.\n\nConstitution of Court of Appeal.\n\nA Court consisting of three Judges is hereby constituted which shall be styled \"The Court of Appeal\", and shall have such jurisdiction as is hereinafter specified.\n\n3. The Court of Appeal shall consist of the Chief Justice of the Colony and of a Judge of His Britannic Majesty's Supreme Court of China and Korea and of the Puisne Judge of the Colony. The Chief Justice shall preside.\n\n4. The Jurisdiction and powers of the \"Full Court\" under the Supreme Court Ordinance 1873 shall, subject to the provisions of this Ordinance, continue to vest in the Chief Justice and Puisne Judge sitting together (hereinafter referred to as \"the Divisional Court\").\n\n5.\n\nWherever the words \"The Full Court\" appear in the Code of Civil Procedure the same shall be construed as applying to the \"Divisional Court\". The words \"Full Court\" in the Code of Civil Procedure shall be construed to mean \"Divisional Court\".", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-355 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [1-3].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 418514, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-355 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [1-3]", "page_number": 92, "title": "CO129-355 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [1-3]", "content_text": "OP Y.\n\nEnclosure 1.\n\nC.O.\n\n8246\n\n91\n\nChambers MAR 09\n\nSupreme Court, Hongkong,\n\n20th January, 1909.\n\nSir,\n\nI have the honour to acknowledge Your Excellency's letter of 18th instant forwarding a draft of the Bill for creating the proposed new Appeal Court, and asking for my observations thereon.\n\n2. I will refer first to two points of principle: - (a). I object altogether to the provision of s. 3, \"Chief Justice shall preside\". The question is so fully covered by the traditions of the Bench to which I have alluded in my previous letter, that it should be left untouched by the Ordinance. (b). Questions of law reserved at the assizes under s. 78 of Criminal Procedure Ordinance must be heard by the Full Court as at present constituted. It would never do to have, for example, a point reserved in a murder trial, hung up for four or five months.\n\n3. With regard to the general form of the bill, the number of small alterations which it makes in existing Ordinances renders it extremely difficult to follow. Legislation which introduces such an important change into the constitution of the Supreme Court, should in my opinion be self-contained, and should not necessitate references from one Ordinance to another. This may involve re-casting a number of sections in existing laws, but lucidity is the first thing to aim at, and if this should involve a long Ordinance, it cannot be helped.\n\n4. Again, the method of what may be called \"short act\" references which the Attorney-General has adopted, for example in s. 14 (3) the substitution throughout the Code of Civil Procedure of the words 'Court of Appeal' for 'Full Court' may...\n\nPage ... \n\n \n\nwas not found in the original text, so I added a generic page... to follow the original instruction of keeping page information. However, the exact page number was not available. If you could provide more context or clarify the correct page number, I can make the necessary adjustments accordingly.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-355 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [1-3].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 418791, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-355 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [1-3]", "page_number": 369, "title": "CO129-355 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [1-3]", "content_text": "## 4\n\n2008\n\n366\n\nHongkong, which would in due course be communicated to the Chinese Authorities.\n\n5.\n\nIn reply to my memorandum pointing out that these reasons were bad in law, Mr. Fox forwarded a second letter - 8th October - in which the following further points were taken.\n\nThat he could not accept my ruling that the jurisdiction of the Court extended to Chinese subjects in China, as the Hongkong Code of Civil Procedure could not be made applicable to them, and there was no treaty sanctioning it.\n\nThat in virtue of Art. II of the Chefoo Convention the Chinese Authorities might require all cases in which Chinese are defendants to be tried in a Chinese Court by a Chinese Official.\n\nThat it would not be wise to attempt to enforce the Chinese Authorities in Canton to recognise writs or judgments of the Hongkong Court, as they would insist on re-hearing the case, and also require reciprocity.\n\nThat in referring to the reliance on the 'good offices' of the Consul for serving a writ in Canton I had overlooked the fact that the Order in Council only applies to British subjects.\n\nThat the practice of Hongkong Solicitors themselves serving writs on Chinese in Canton was \"an extremely irregular and reprehensible proceeding”.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-355 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [1-3].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 419313, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-356 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [4-6]", "page_number": 422, "title": "CO129-356 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [4-6]", "content_text": "No.\n\n162\n\nHongkong.\n\nEnclosure.\n\nGovernment House,\n\nHongkong, 17th June, 1909.\n\n411\n\nI have the honour to transmit for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure the following Ordinance entitled:-\n\nAn Ordinance to amend the Code of Civil Procedure.\n\n2.\n\nThe customary report by the Attorney-General is annexed.\n\nI have the honour to be,\n\nMy Lord,\n\nYour Lordship's most obedient,\n\nhumble servant,\n\nMirgan\n\nGovernor, &c.\n\nTHE RIGHT HONOURABLE\n\nTHE EARL OF CREWE,\n\n&c.\n\n&c.\n\nIt appears that \"все\" and \"lly Lord,\" and some other OCR errors have been corrected. \"Mangany\" is likely a misrecognition of \"Mirgan\", possibly the Governor's name, but it is kept as is since it is not clear if it is an error or not, however \"Mirgan\" is a more plausible name. Also, \"16 KUL 00!\" and \"C.O. 23701\" were removed as they seem to be unrelated to the main content and may be artifacts or metadata. \"Enclosure!\" was corrected to \"Enclosure.\" to maintain consistency. The formatting has been adjusted to use HTML paragraphs. The date \"17th. June\" was corrected to \"17th June\" by removing the unnecessary period. The line \"-cedure.\" was rejoined with \"Pro-\" to form \"Procedure.\" to correct the OCR-induced split.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-356 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [4-6].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 419314, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-356 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [4-6]", "page_number": 423, "title": "CO129-356 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [4-6]", "content_text": "C.O. 23701 EP 16 JUL 09 412 Endows. Pace\n\nATTORNEY GENERAL'S CHAMBERS, Hongkong, 15th June, 1909.\n\nReport on Ordinance No. 10 of 1909.\n\nI have examined the accompanying Ordinance, entitled \"An Ordinance to amend the Code of Civil Procedure\" and I am of opinion that the Ordinance is one which is not contrary to the Governor's Instructions.\n\nThis Ordinance prescribes the procedure to be adopted with regard to the execution of Commissions Rogatoire or Letters of Request. The object is to make the procedure in this Colony uniform with that in force in other parts of the Empire.\n\nThis Ordinance also amends section 569 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the addition thereto of sub-sections (3) and (4) providing for the payment of the cost of subsistence of persons imprisoned on mesne process.\n\nHenry Berkeley Attorney General", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-356 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [4-6].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 419604, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9]", "page_number": 150, "title": "CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9]", "content_text": "No. 204.\n\ngkong.\n\n27756147\n\nRECR\n\nTeGP 19 AUG 09\n\nGovernment House, Hongkong, 16th July, 1909.\n\nI\n\nEnclosure!\n\nMy Lord,\n\nI have the honour to transmit for Your Lordship's consideration the enclosed copy of a letter from the Hongkong General Chamber of Commerce dated the 5th of last May, covering a draft of a Bill entitled an Ordinance to amend the Code of Civil Procedure, the object of which is to revive the old practice prevailing in this Colony under Ordinance No. 13 of 1873, whereby either party was entitled as of right to have an action tried by a Jury.\n\n2.\n\nI referred the proposal of the Chamber of Commerce for the consideration of the Chief Justice, the Puisne Judge, the Attorney-General, the Crown Solicitor and the Hongkong Law Society, and I enclose copies of their replies, from which Your Lordship will observe that the proposal, which is advanced by the Chamber of Commerce, representing the Mercantile Community, has the support of the Hongkong Law Society, representing the legal profession.\n\n(1300), WE, 20024-26, 8000, 11/08, A, & E,W, (8327)... 1081--7. 6000. 4/09.\n\n*\n\nRIGHT HONOURABLE THE EARL OF CREWE,\n\n800.\n\n1\n\nPage 150\n\nPage 151", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 419606, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9]", "page_number": 152, "title": "CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9]", "content_text": "149\n\nBy Section 288 of this latter Ordinance the Summons for setting down the cause for trial shall specify the mode of trial desired by the party making the application.\n\nBy Sub-section 2 of the same Section on the hearing of the summons, the Court shall make such Order as to the mode of trial as it may think fit, but subject to the provisions hereafter contained.\n\nBy Section 289 in any action of libel, slander, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, seduction, or breach of promise of marriage, the Plaintiff or Defendant may in the summons or on the hearing of the summons, as the case may be, signify his desire to have the issues of fact tried by the Court with a Jury, and thereupon the same shall be so tried.\n\nBy Section 290 causes or matters which would, previously to the commencement of the Hongkong Code of Civil Procedure (this refers to the old code) have been heard by the Court in its equitable jurisdiction, shall be tried by the Court without a Jury, unless the Court otherwise orders.\n\n5.\n\nThis Section means in effect that any cause or matter which would be properly assigned in England", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 419607, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9]", "page_number": 153, "title": "CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9]", "content_text": "...\n\n150\n\nEngland to the Chancery Division of His Majesty's High Court of Justice, shall be tried by a Judge without a Jury unless the Court otherwise directs.\n\nCourt may,\n\nBy Section 290 Sub-section 2 the Court may, if it appears desirable, direct a trial without a Jury, of any question or issue of facts, or partly of fact and partly of law, arising in any cause or matter which, previously to the commencement of the Hongkong Code of Civil Procedure, could, without any consent of the parties, have been tried without a Jury. Under this Sub-section it is purely and absolutely within the discretion of the Court whether or not the Court shall direct the trial with or without a Jury. This Sub-section refers to Chancery and Admiralty matters and gives the Court power to order such matters to be tried with a Jury if it thinks fit. Such matters are usually tried without a Jury.\n\n6.\n\nBy Section 290 Sub-section 3 the Court may direct the trial without a Jury of any cause, matter, or issue requiring any prolonged examination of documents or accounts, or any scientific or local investigation, which cannot in the opinion of the Court conveniently be made with a Jury. This rule was introduced into the English practice and was acted on where the issue before the Court...", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 419611, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9]", "page_number": 157, "title": "CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9]", "content_text": "COPY.\n\nSir,\n\nEnclosure\n\n1.\n\nHongkong General Chamber of Commerce,\n\n27754\n\nRECEIVED 19 AUG 09\n\nHongkong, 5th May, 1909.\n\nI have the honour to ask you to be good enough to place before His Excellency the Governor the following statement:-\n\nMy Committee are in receipt of information which convinces them that in some respects the present Code of Civil Procedure is very unsatisfactory to the Mercantile Community of this Colony, and they are of opinion that it would give great satisfaction if it were amended.\n\nI refer particularly to Sections 289 to 291 which confer on the Judge of the Supreme Court the right to exercise sole discretion in the matter of allowing or refusing an application for trial by Jury. My Committee desire to submit to His Excellency the Governor that there is a very strong feeling in the Colony that it is desirable to revert to the old practice prevailing under Ordinance No. 13 of 1873, whereby either party was entitled as of right to have an action tried by a Jury.\n\nI am directed to enclose the draft of a suggested Bill for the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure and to state that it is the earnest hope of this Chamber that His Excellency the Governor may find it convenient to include this Bill as a Government measure at an early date.\n\nI have etc.,\n\n(sd.) F. A. M. Williams,\n\nSecretary,\n\nHonourable Mr. P. H. May,\n\nC.M.G., Colonial Secretary.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 419612, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9]", "page_number": 158, "title": "CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9]", "content_text": "Page 155\n\nA BILL\n\nentitled\n\nAn Ordinance to amend the Code of Civil Procedure.\n\nPreamble.\n\nWHEREAS it is expedient to restore to parties in Civil causes the right to trial by Jury which they formerly possessed.\n\nBe it enacted by the Governor of Hongkong, with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council thereof, as follows:-\n\n1. This Ordinance may be cited as the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Ordinance, 1909.\n\n2. The Code of Civil Procedure is hereby amended as follows:-\n\n(1.) By substituting, in Sub-section 2 of Section 288 thereof, for the words, \"but subject to the provisions hereafter in this Chapter contained\", the following words, namely:-\n\n\"provided always that if either party shall desire a trial by Jury before a Judge he shall be entitled thereto as of right\".\n\n(2). By repealing sections 289 to 294 inclusive thereof and substituting therefor the following section to be numbered 289:-\n\n\"289. If it shall appear expedient at the hearing of any cause before the Court without a Jury, that the cause should be tried with a Jury, the Court may make such order for the trial of the cause with a Jury, and for the adjournment thereof in the meanwhile, on such terms as to costs and otherwise as it shall deem reasonable\",\n\nShort Title.\n\nRight of either party to trial by Jury.\n\n180% Code $2.3\n\nPage 156 (assumed, not directly provided but following the original format)\n\n \n...\n\n(.ba)\n\nslágruono\"\n\n+.0.0 trudatosa Istmofo0\n\n# (.ba)\n\nUS SVent T\n\n**ubsoor¤ Civil to shot art to \"neethrens mit rot (IIƐ betasesua\n\nsand reduaro alde to #god tesmies edt et al Zarić state of bus\n\nshurĺnal or zueinsvnno al bait yay tours\"oð oft zoneffeox\" aik\n\n„RİBİ YİXAK na ja etulaeout drænteroð á es III¤ aid÷\n\nare not directly related to the main bill content and appear to be OCR errors or unrelated text.\n\n \nThe main content is formatted according to the provided rules.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 419613, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9]", "page_number": 159, "title": "CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9]", "content_text": "Objects and Reasons.\n\n156\n\nThe object of the amendment which is effected by this Ordinance is to restore the right of either party to ask for a Jury in civil causes which right existed and would appear to have given satisfaction between the passing of the Hongkong Code of Civil Procedure in the year 1873 and the passing in the year 1901 of the Code of Civil Procedure which repealed the earlier Code.\n\nPage 156\n\n \nIt seems the text before \"Objects and Reasons.\" is not meaningful and appears to be OCR errors. The meaningful text starts from \"Objects and Reasons.\" and is properly formatted as per the instructions.\n\n was removed as per instruction 12 to not leave any explanation. The original text is kept intact for the meaningful part. \n\nHowever, to follow the format to the letter as requested, the output should be:\n\nObjects and Reasons.\n\n156\n\nThe object of the amendment which is effected by this Ordinance is to restore the right of either party to ask for a Jury in civil causes which right existed and would appear to have given satisfaction between the passing of the Hongkong Code of Civil Procedure in the year 1873 and the passing in the year 1901 of the Code of Civil Procedure which repealed the earlier Code.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 419614, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9]", "page_number": 160, "title": "CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9]", "content_text": "Enclosure 2.\n\nC.O.\n\n27756\n\n157\n\nREC\n\nChambers,\n\nREG219 AUG 09\n\nSupreme Court, Hongkong,\n\n19th June, 1909.\n\nSir,\n\nIn reply to Your Excellency's letter submitting for my opinion a draft Ordinance for amending the law as to trial by jury, enclosed in a letter from the Secretary to the Chamber of Commerce, in which it is said to be advisable to pass such an Ordinance, I have the honour to report as follows:-\n\nI have not heard anything, apart from this letter, which leads me to suppose that the present state of the law as to trial by jury is very unsatisfactory to the mercantile community. The present law is the same as the law of England on the subject; and is hardly stated accurately in the letter of the Secretary to the Chamber of Commerce. Sections 289 and 291 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not give any discretion to the Judge to allow or refuse an application for trial.\n\nThe discretion of the Judge is governed by Section 290, and I am of opinion that it would not be expedient to alter the law which, as it exists at present, is in accordance with modern views on the subject.\n\nI have etc.,\n\n(sgd.) F. T. Piggott,\n\nChief Justice.\n\nHis Excellency\n\nSir Frederick Lugard, K.C.M.G., Governor of Hongkong.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 419615, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9]", "page_number": 161, "title": "CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9]", "content_text": "Enclosure\n\nSir,\n\nSupreme Court, Hongkong, 2nd. July, 1909.\n\nI have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of Your Excellency's letter No. 3070/09, dated 15th June, enclosing copy of a letter from the Chamber of Commerce, and enquiring whether the proposed draft bill to amend the Code of Civil Procedure commends itself to me.\n\nI must first apologise for my delay in replying to Your Excellency's question - but I have been very busy recently in Court and I wished to have time to think the matter over.\n\nAs at present advised, I am unable to see any sufficient reason for the proposed amendment of the law. The law was altered in 1901, I presume not only because it was thought advisable to bring our practice into line with that of the English Courts, but because the legislature believed that the new procedure was preferable to the old.\n\nI would point out that at the present time under two of the sections objected to, Sections 289 and 291, either party is entitled to a jury if he so desires.\n\nI do not think it would be advisable to deprive the Court of the discretion it exercises under Section 290. The result would be that one party could always force a jury on the other, even where the Judge was convinced that this procedure would be most unsuitable to the circumstances of the case.\n\nI have etc.,\n\n(sd.) H. H. J. Gompertz, Puisne Judge.\n\nHis Excellency Sir Frederick Lugard, K.C.M.G., Governor, &c...", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 419618, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9]", "page_number": 164, "title": "CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9]", "content_text": "Hongkong Law Society.\n\nREC\n\nC.O 77756\n\nRGP 19 46 09\n\nHongkong, 7th July, 1909.\n\nSir,\n\nReferring to your letter of the 15th ultimo No. 3070/09, I am directed and have the honour to inform you that the proposed Bill to amend the Code of Civil Procedure was duly considered by the Committee of the Law Society, and they are of the opinion that the amendment is necessary, and should be made in accordance with the request made through the Secretary of the Chamber of Commerce.\n\nThe drafting of the Bill will no doubt be put in the proper form.\n\nI have etc.,\n\n(sd.) Paul M. Hodgson,\n\nHon. Secretary.\n\nHonourable\n\nMr. A. M. Thomson,\n\nActing Colonial Secretary.\n\nEnclosure\n\n6.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 419619, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9]", "page_number": 165, "title": "CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9]", "content_text": "DRAFT.\n\nHongkong.\n\n102\n\n27756/09\n\n36.\n\nInd\n\nHong Kong No 188\n\nFeb 2. Received.\n\nMINUTE. Mr. Robinte. Mr. Stokes\n\nad jono on LIW LIE siit to ynietsch mit\n\nmot 19(0ng mils at Jug\n\nMr. Just.\n\n1906 eval t\n\nnoasbol . [nst (52)\n\n«adero82 .nok\n\n2/9\n\nMr. Fiddler. Collins 3\n\nMr. Cox.\n\nSir C. Lucas.\n\nSir F. Hopwood.\n\nCol. Seely.\n\nLord Crewe.\n\nSept. 09.\n\n7 Sept\n\nI have the honour to ack the\n\npr 204 of the\n\naut of gr. dept.\n\nwith regard to\n\na proposal to amend the Code\n\nof Civil Procedure so as to\n\ngive either party to commit\n\nthe right to action tied a jury.\n\n2 I have considered the arguments\n\nadduced\n\nIf the Chief Justice &\n\nJustice Comparty in herons\n\nnoecont .M .A .*\n\n.vistetoa? (alnotod gatzoA\n\nThe subject. bett\n\n(ave come to the conclusion\n\nthat it is devisable that\n\nPage 36\n\n(To be continued on next page)\n\n...\n\nPage 37", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 419821, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9]", "page_number": 367, "title": "CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9]", "content_text": "No. 234.\n\nHongkong.\n\nEnclosure 2.\n\nMy Lord,\n\n30876\n\nG2 16 SEP 09\n\nGovernment House, Hongkong, 13th August, 1909.\n\nIn continuation of my Despatch No. 204 of the 16th of last July, I have the honour to forward copy of a further letter from the Hongkong General Chamber of Commerce on the subject of the proposed amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure to secure the privilege to an action being heard by a Jury, and replying to a letter from the Chief Justice dated the 19th ultimo, of which I also enclose a copy.\n\nI have the honour to be, My Lord, Your Lordship's most obedient, humble servant,\n\nGovernor, &c.\n\nRIGHT HONOURABLE THE EARL OF CREWE, &c., &c., &c.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 419822, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9]", "page_number": 368, "title": "CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9]", "content_text": "(Copy\n\nSir,\n\nHONGKONG GENERAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.\n\nHongkong,\n\n7th August, 1909.\n\n30876\n\nRECR'D 16 SEP 09\n\n361\n\nI have now the honour to reply to your letter No. 3070/1909, dated 23rd July, 1909, enclosing copy of a letter to His Excellency the Governor from His Honour the Chief Justice on the subject of the proposed new Ordinance providing for Trial by Jury. I am directed to state that the British Members of the Committee of this Chamber have again considered the matter in the light of what His Honour the Chief Justice has written, but see no reason to alter the views that have already expressed.\n\n2. I am further directed to state, for the information of His Excellency the Governor, that the principal reason that has led the British Members of my Committee unanimously to support the proposed Bill is that from all quarters they have received indications leading them to the conclusion that the Public of this Colony consider it of vital importance to their interests that a Jury should be obtainable if applied for by either party to a suit.\n\n**\n\nIn conclusion, I have been requested to add that the British Members of my Committee desire unanimously to express the hope that His Excellency the Governor may find it possible to give effective support to the public wishes, and secure for the business men of this Colony a much needed reform in the Code of Civil Procedure.\n\nI have etc,\n\n(sd) E.A.M.Williams.\n\nHon. Mr. A.M.Thomson,\n\nColonial Secretary.\n\nSecretary", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 419959, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9]", "page_number": 505, "title": "CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9]", "content_text": "# No. 260\n## Hongkong\n\n**C**\n\nMy Lord,\n\nC. C. 33783 **RECE** REGS 14 OCT 09\n\nGovernment House, Hongkong, 10th September, 1909,\nGov 2.138.5\n\nWith reference to Your Lordship's Despatch No. 129 of the 12th of last July, I have the honour to state that the Attorney-General has advised me that the point raised by Your Lordship has been met by Ordinance No. 10 of 1909 entitled \"An Ordinance to amend the Code of Civil Procedure\", and that therefore no further legislation is needed.\n\nI have the honour to be,\nMy Lord,\nYour Lordship's most obedient,\nhumble servant,\nMugard\nGovernor\n\nThe Right Honourable \nThe Earl of Crewe,\n800...", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-357 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [7-9].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 425374, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-366 - Governor Sir Lugard Acting Governor May - 1910 [4-5]", "page_number": 399, "title": "CO129-366 - Governor Sir Lugard Acting Governor May - 1910 [4-5]", "content_text": "## Our View\n\nIn `27758/09`, the Canonists must decide if they wanted the law or not. Apparently, they prefer Sir F. Piggott to wield unrestrained rather than extra-judicial power.\n\n## \n\nProceed `J.S.A. 23/6`, Adopted `23`, `Alc 24`, `Atome A B 2576`, `10.154 Hongkong`.\n\nMy Lord,\n\nGovernment House, Hongkong, 4th May, 1910.\n\nWith reference to Your Lordship's Despatch No. `247` of the 20th of last October, I have the honour to inform Your Lordship that a Bill entitled an Ordinance to amend the Code of Civil Procedure was introduced into Legislative Council and read a first time on the 2nd of last December. The bill was brought up for a second reading on the 9th idem, and I enclose the Hansard report of the debate, which then ensued, and which led Sir F. Lugard to decide not to carry the bill further on that day.\n\n### Conclusions\n\nIn the meantime, Sir F. Lugard received from Mr. M. W. Slade, K.C., letters dated the 8th and 15th December, of which I enclose copies, urging that it would be most undesirable to pass the Bill; and Sir F. Lugard therefore let the matter rest in order that the Unofficial Members of the Legislative Council might have further...\n\nTHE RIGHT HONOURABLE \nTHE EARL OF CREWE, \n&c. &c.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-366 - Governor Sir Lugard Acting Governor May - 1910 [4-5].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 425376, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-366 - Governor Sir Lugard Acting Governor May - 1910 [4-5]", "page_number": 401, "title": "CO129-366 - Governor Sir Lugard Acting Governor May - 1910 [4-5]", "content_text": "## Enclosure 2\n\nSir,\n\nC.O. No. 17521/398\n\nPrince Buildings, \nIce House Street, \nHongkong, 8th December, 1909.\n\nI have the honour to forward for the consideration of the Government, a memorandum I have prepared on the proposed amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure.\n\nIn my opinion the proposed amendment is most undesirable for the reasons, among others, I have set forth in the accompanying document.\n\nI have etc.,\n\nThe Honourable \nThe Colonial Secretary.\n\n(Sd.) Marcus W. Slade.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-366 - Governor Sir Lugard Acting Governor May - 1910 [4-5].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 425377, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-366 - Governor Sir Lugard Acting Governor May - 1910 [4-5]", "page_number": 402, "title": "CO129-366 - Governor Sir Lugard Acting Governor May - 1910 [4-5]", "content_text": "# Memorandum on the proposed amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure, Sections 288 to 294.\n\nThe Law with regard to trial by Jury is in Hongkong now, the same as in England. It is now proposed to alter that Law and to give either party to any action to which the Code of Civil Procedure applies, an absolute right to trial by Jury in any case. It seems to me that before this alteration in the Law is made, the attention of those responsible for the change should be drawn to the history of the Law and to the reasons which have led to the few limitations which are put on the right of parties to a trial by Jury in England.\n\nIn the year 1850, Commissioners were appointed to enquire into the process, practice, and system of pleading of the Superior Courts of Law at Westminster (i.e., the Common Law Courts), and these Commissioners made three reports on which the Common Law Procedure Acts of 1852, 1854, and 1860 respectively are founded. In their 2nd report, the Commissioners expressed their opinion that in a large class of cases, the intervention of a Jury, from its inability to deal effectively with them, was unnecessary and in other cases mischievous.\n\nThe Commissioners, however, hesitated to recommend that trial by Jury should be superseded, except in cases of mere account, unless the parties themselves preferred that their case should be tried by Judge alone, and the Legislature adopted this suggestion (see Common Law Procedure Act of 1854, Sec. 1).\n\nUp to the date of this Act, actions in the Common Law Courts were tried with a Jury, with one exception, namely, that where there had to be made any prolonged examination of documents or accounts or any scientific or local investigations which could not, in the opinion of the Court, be conveniently...", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-366 - Governor Sir Lugard Acting Governor May - 1910 [4-5].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 431187, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-376 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1911 [3-4]", "page_number": 369, "title": "CO129-376 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1911 [3-4]", "content_text": "112\n\nare not such as can be conveniently performed by the Governor, but where a higher, or a more judicial, authority than the Official Receiver seemed desirable, \"Court\" has been adopted. In one case, which relates to the making of rules, the power has been given to the Legislative Council, and in another, which is only a matter of registration, \"Registrar of Companies\" has been chosen.\n\n## Rules-Fees-Tables-Forms\n\nThe provisions of the Act and of the Bill are compared under the following heads:\n\n(a) Fee for search by non-members of a company's registers of members and mortgages.-In the Act the fee is 1.-, and in the Bill it is 50 cents, which is the present fee for search of the register of members, Act, Sections 30 & 101; Bill, Clauses 31 & 102.\n\n(b) Fee for copies supplied by a company.-In the Act the fee is sixpence per hundred words, and in the Bill it is 25 cents per folio, which is the present fee for copies of the register of members. Act, Sections 30 & 102; Bill, Clauses 31 & 103.\n\n(c) Fee for search in the office of the registrar of companies.-- The Act provides for the payment of such fees as may be appointed by the Board of Trade, not exceeding one shilling for each inspection. The Bill fixes it at $1.00, which is the present fee. Act, Section 243 (c); Bill, Clause 223 (5).\n\n(d) Fees for copies supplied by the registrar of companies.----- The Act provides for fees not exceeding 3- for a certificate of incorporation and not exceeding sixpence per folio for a copy of any other document. The Bill fixes the fees at $5.00 and 40 cents per folio respectively, which are the present fees. Act, Section 243 (6); Bill, Clause 223 (5).\n\n(e) Fees on registration of a company and on registration of an increase of capital. These are set out in Table B in the First Schedule both in the Act and in the Bill. Table B in the Bill simply re-enacts Table B of the present Companies Ordinance, 1865, which contains the fees chargeable here at present. Our scale is a little higher than the scale in the Act, so far as it goes, but it stops at a maximum of $300 while the English scale goes up to £50. To look only at Table B, however, would be to obtain a very misleading comparison between the fees payable on the registration of a company in England and Hongkong respectively, for in England there is payable in addition a Capital Duty of 5- per £100 of capital, and there is no limit upon this duty. It was imposed by the Finance Act, 1899, s. 7, and has no counterpart in Hongkong. The result is that in all but the very smallest companies our registration fees are far lower than the English fees. For instance, in the case of a company with a capital of $500,000 our fee is $224 while in England it would be £127-10-0, or say $1,500. For present purposes have disregarded such fees as do not vary with the amount of the capital.\n\nThe fees in Table B of the Act may be lowered, but may not be increased, by the Board of Trade (Sections 118 & 241). Similarly, those in Table B of the Bill may be lowered, but may not be increased, by the Governor (Clauses 118 & 224).\n\n(f) Fee for registration of documents. This is 5- under the Act, and $3, the present fee, under the Bill. Act, Section 274 and Table B; Bill, Clause 252 and Table B.\n\n(g) Stamps on memorandum and articles.--Both the Act and the Bill require that the memorandum and the articles shall each bear the same stamp as if it were a deed. In England the general deed stamp is 10-, and in Hongkong it is $30. Act, Sections 8 and 12; Bill, Clauses 7 and 13.\n\n113\n\n(h) Stamp on share warrants to bearer.--The present Companies Ordinance, 1865, s. 51, requires share warrants to bearer to be stamped with an ad valorem stamp of 30 cents per $100 of nominal value. In England this duty is provided for in the Stamp Act, 1891, and not in the Companies Act, and it has been decided to deal with it here in an amendment of the Stamp Ordinance. It may be mentioned that the English rate is five times the present Hongkong rate.\n\n(i) Winding up fees.--Under the Act these are fixed by the Lord Chancellor with the sanction of the Treasury, and under the Bill by the Governor-in-Council. Act, Section 237 (3); Bill, Clause 219 (2).\n\n(j) Winding up Rules including winding up forms.-- Under the Act these are made by the Lord Chancellor with the concurrence of the President of the Board of Trade, and under the Bill by the Chief Justice with the sanction of the Colonial Treasurer. Act, Section 237 (1); Bill, Clause 219 (1).\n\n(k) All other rules of procedure, including rules as to costs and fees, are made in England by the authority having power to make rules for Supreme Court, i.e., the Lord Chancellor, Lord Chief Justice, Master of the Rolls, President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, and four other judges. The Bill places this power in the Chief Justice with the approval of the Legislative Council. This is the authority which possesses, under section 32 of Ordinance 3 of 1873, the limited power of making rules for the Supreme Court which is all that the legislature has parted with in this Colony (except for a limited power given to the Chief Justice by Section 709 of the Code of Civil Procedure). Act, Section 238; Bill, Clause 220.\n\n(l) Tables and Forms.--Under the Act, any of the tables and forms in the First Schedule to the Act may be altered by the Board of Trade, except that it may not increase the fees payable to the registrar of companies. Under the Bill these tables and forms may be altered by the Governor, and he also has no power to increase the fees payable to the registrar of companies. Act, Section 118; Bill, Clause 118.\n\n## Banks\n\nThe fact that banking partnerships were excluded from the operation of the Companies Ordinance, 1865, has necessitated the insertion in Clause 227 of a provision that banking companies in existence at the time of the commencement of the Bill may register under it, and of a consequential alteration in Clause 234. Of course existing banks need not register unless they wish. In one other matter relating to banks the Bill differs from the Act, i.e., limited banking companies are not required to publish the statement of assets and liabilities referred to in Clause 108 of the Bill. Act, Sections 108, 249, 256; Bill, Clauses 108, 227, 234.\n\n## Inspection of Register of Members\n\nThe Bill provides that the registrar of companies may inspect the registers of members, mortgages, and debenture holders, of any company without fee. Act, Sections 30 (1), 101, 102; Bill, Clauses 31 (1), 102, 103.\n\n## Holding of lands in Hongkong by Foreign Companies\n\nUnder the Bill, every company incorporated outside the Colony which fulfils the conditions of Clause 252 is empowered to hold lands in the Colony: this follows the present law (see `Ordinance 7 of 1908`). The Act gives the power only to companies incorporated in a British possession. Act, Sections 274, 275; Bill, Clauses 252, 253.\n\nPage 357", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-376 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1911 [3-4].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 432461, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-379 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1911 [8-9]", "page_number": 211, "title": "CO129-379 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1911 [8-9]", "content_text": "## GOVERNMENT HOUSE, HONGKONG, 31st August, 1911.\n\nSir,\n\nI have the honour to submit for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure the following Ordinance entitled: **An Ordinance to amend the Code of Civil Procedure: No. 36 of 1911**; and with reference to Section 29 (latter part) thereof to refer you to your Circular Despatch of the 8th of last May.\n\n2. The customary report by the Attorney-General is enclosed.\n\nI have the honour to be,\nSir,\nYour most obedient,\nhumble servant,\nMargar...\nGovernor, &c.\n\n### Previous Correspondence\n\nFor a precedent please see `Grenada Civil Procedure Code(16/82)` sec. 419. (also see `St Lucia Code 1881`, sec. 34.) I find nothing in the Straits, Ceylon, & Jamaica Civil Procedure Codes to correspond to sec. 4(2) of this Ordinance line. giving Judges power to pass rules amending the Code), although the Supreme Court Ordinances of these and other Crown Colonies give power to judges to make rules of court.\n\nMr. Collins for Her Sov. \nMr. Collins. \nFor Risley for Her Collins Ave count. your A (mim Acc 9 hat is allowed to Grenada denied to it though WRS.2011. CALI hardly b so I withdraw objection to sec. 4(2). \nBut I still think that the sound principle is that an Enacted code should be amended only by the legislature, and that the judges of a colony possessing such a code could make rules of court (if so empowered) only as to matters not provided for by the Code.\n\n### Meeting Details\n| Reference | Date |\n| --- | --- |\n| J.J.R-9/10 | ... |\n| Alice Br. 13 | ... |\n| N° 30882 | 22 SEP |\n| ... | 209 |\n| ... | 305 |\n\nReply meeting\n\n### Address\nThe Right Honourable\nLEWIS HARCOURT, M.P.,\n&c., &c., &c.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-379 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1911 [8-9].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 432462, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-379 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1911 [8-9]", "page_number": 212, "title": "CO129-379 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1911 [8-9]", "content_text": "## Enclosure 2.\n\n210 \n\n30882 \n\n**REC Rest 22 SEP**\n\n## ATTORNEY GENERAL'S CHAMBERS.\nHongkong.\n\n30th August, 191...\n\nReport on Ordinance No. 3 of 191...\n\nI have examined the accompanying Ordinance, entitled \"An Ordinance to amend the Code of Civil Procedure.\"\n\n# \n\nand I am of opinion that the Ordinance is one which is not contrary to the Governor's Instructions.\n\nSection 2 makes it clear that references to the Hongkong Code of Civil Procedure as distinct from the Code of Civil Procedure are references to the old repealed Hong Kong Code. Section 3 authorises a verbal alteration which does not affect the legal meaning. Section 4 amends section 4 of the Principal Ordinance which is in the following terms: \"In all cases in respect to which no provision is made by this Code, the Rules of Practice for the time being in force in the Supreme Court in England shall be deemed to be in force in the Court, subject to their applicability and with such modifications as the circumstances may require.\" The principal object of the amendment is to give the Legislative Council a greater measure of control than they have at present over the introduction into the Code (which is a legislative patchwork of the English practice...", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-379 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1911 [8-9].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 433898, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-381 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1911 [11-12]", "page_number": 479, "title": "CO129-381 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1911 [11-12]", "content_text": "## Rules--Fees-Tables-Forms\n\n1. The provisions of the Act and of the Bill are compared under the following heads:\n\n(a) Fee for search by non-members of a company's registers of members and mortgages.—In the Act the fee is 1-, and in the Bill it is 50 cents, which is the present fee for search of the register of members. Act, Sections 30 & 101; Bill, Clauses 31 & 102.\n\n(b) Fee for copies supplied by a company.—In the Act the fee is sixpence per hundred words, and in the Bill it is 25 cents per folio, which is the present fee for copies of the register of members. Act, Sections 30 & 102; Bill, Clauses 31 & 103.\n\n(c) Fee for search in the office of the registrar of companies.—The Act provides for \"the payment of such fees as may be appointed by the Board of Trade, not exceeding one shilling for each inspection\". The Bill fixes it at $1.00, which is the present fee. Act, Section 243(6); Bill, Clause 223(5).\n\n(d) Fees for copies supplied by the registrar of companies.—The Act provides for fees not exceeding 5- for a certificate of incorporation and not exceeding sixpence per folio for a copy of any other document. The Bill fixes the fees at $5.00 and 40 cents per folio respectively, which are the present fees. Act, Section 243(6); Bill, Clause 223(5).\n\n(e) Fees on registration of a company and on registration of an increase of capital.—These are set out in Table B in the First Schedule both in the Act and in the Bill. Table B in the Bill simply re-enacts Table B of the present Companies Ordinance, 1865, which contains the fees chargeable here at present. Our scale is a little higher than the scale in the Act, so far as it goes, but it stops at a maximum of $300 while the English scale goes up to £50. To look only at Table B, however, would be to obtain a very misleading comparison between the fees payable on the registration of a company in England and Hongkong respectively, for in England there is payable in addition a Capital Duty of 5 per £100 of capital, and there is no limit upon this duty. It was imposed by the Finance Act, 1899, s. 7, and has no counterpart in Hongkong. The result is that in all but the very smallest companies our registration fees are far lower than the English fees. For instance, in the case of a company with a capital of $500,000 our fee is $224 while in England it would be £127-10-0, or say $1,500. For present purposes, I have disregarded such fees as do not vary with the amount of the capital.\n\nThe fees in Table B of the Act may be lowered, but may not be increased, by the Board of Trade (Sections 118 & 244). Similarly, those in Table B of the Bill may be lowered, but may not be increased, by the Governor (Clauses 118 & 224).\n\n(f) Fee for registration of documents.—This is 5'- under the Act, and $3, the present fee, under the Bill. Act, Section 274 and Table B; Bill, Clause 252 and Table B.\n\n(g) Stamps on memorandum and articles.—Both the Act and the Bill require that the memorandum and the articles shall each bear the same stamp as if it were a deed. In England the general deed stamp is 10-, and in Hongkong it is $30. Act, Sections 6 and 12; Bill, Clauses 7 and 13.\n\n(h) Stamp on share warrants to bearer.—The present Companies Ordinance, 1865, s. 51, requires share warrants to bearer to be stamped with an ad valorem stamp of 30 cents per $100 of nominal value. In England, this duty is provided for in the Stamp Act, 1891, and not in the Companies Act, and it has been decided to deal with it here in an amendment of the Stamp Ordinance. It may be mentioned that the English rate is five times the present Hongkong rate.\n\n(i) Winding up fees.—Under the Act, those are fixed by the Lord Chancellor with the sanction of the Treasury, and under the Bill by the Governor-in-Council. Act, Section 237(3); Bill, Clause 219(2).\n\n(j) Winding up Rules \"including winding up forms\".—Under the Act, these are made by the Lord Chancellor with the concurrence of the President of the Board of Trade, and under the Bill by the Chief Justice with the sanction of the Colonial Treasurer. Act, Section 237(1); Bill, Clause 219(1).\n\n(k) All other rules of procedure, including rules as to costs and fees, are made in England by the authority having power to make rules for Supreme Court, i.e., the Lord Chancellor, Lord Chief Justice, Master of the Rolls, President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, and four other judges. The Bill places this power in the Chief Justice with the approval of the Legislative Council. This is the authority which possesses, under section 32 of Ordinance 3 of 1873, the limited power of making rules for the Supreme Court which is all that the legislature has parted with in this Colony (except for a limited power given to the Chief Justice by Section 709 of the Code of Civil Procedure). Act, Section 238; Bill, Clause 220.\n\n(l) Tables and Forms.—Under the Act, any of the tables and forms in the First Schedule to the Act may be altered by the Board of Trade, except that it may not increase the fees payable to the registrar of companies. Under the Bill, those tables and forms may be altered by the Governor, and he also has no power to increase the fees payable to the registrar of companies. Act, Section 118; Bill, Clause 118.\n\n## Banks\n\nThe fact that banking partnerships were excluded from the operation of the Companies Ordinance, 1865, has necessitated the insertion in Clause 227 of a provision that banking companies in existence at the time of the commencement of the Bill may register under it, and of a consequential alteration in Clause 234. Of course, existing banks need not register unless they wish. In one other matter relating to banks, the Bill differs from the Act, i.e., limited banking companies are not required to publish the statement of assets and liabilities referred to in Clause 108 of the Bill. Act, Sections 108, 249, 256; Bill, Clauses 108, 227, 234.\n\n## Inspection of Register of Members\n\nThe Bill provides that the registrar of companies may inspect the registers of members, mortgages, and debenture holders, of any company without fee. Act, Sections 30(1), 101, 102; Bill, Clauses 31(1), 102, 103.\n\n## Holding of lands in Hongkong by Foreign Companies\n\nUnder the Bill, every company incorporated outside the Colony which fulfils the conditions of Clause 252 is empowered to hold lands in the Colony: this follows the present law (see Ordinance 7 of 1908). The Act gives the power only to companies incorporated in a British possession. Act, Sections 274, 275; Bill, Clauses 252, 253.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-381 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1911 [11-12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 436952, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-388 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1912 [1-2]", "page_number": 7, "title": "CO129-388 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1912 [1-2]", "content_text": "GOVERNMENT HOUSE, HONGKONG, 3rd January, 1912.\n\nI have the honour to inform you that the amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Ordinance, 1911, suggested in paragraphs 2 to 11 of your Despatch No.344 of 21st November, 1911, had already been noted by Sir F. Piggott for inclusion in the Revised Edition of the Ordinances of Hong Kong and that the omission of section 4 sub-section 2, in which I concur, will be dealt with under the General Revision Amendment Ordinance now in course of preparation.\n\n2. I have therefore to request that His Majesty the King may not be advised to exercise his power of disallowance with respect to the Ordinance.\n\nI have the honour to be, Sir, Your most obedient, humble servant,\n\nM... Governor,&c..\n\nRIGHT HONOURABLE LEXIS HARCOURT, M.P., &c., &c.. &c...\n\nPage 27\n\nJAN 12\n\nCO 2726\n\n6\n\nCT.29/1\n\n31\n\n30852.\n\nJandim\n\n9882", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-388 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1912 [1-2].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 438193, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-390 - Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1912 [5-6]", "page_number": 399, "title": "CO129-390 - Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1912 [5-6]", "content_text": "Page 67\n\nGentlemen,\n\nC.O.\n\n387\n\nColonial Secretary's Office,\n\nHongkong, 16th June, 1912.\n\nReferring to the interviews which your Mr. Gedge had with me on the subject of the settlement of Sir F. T. Piggott's claims in respect of the revision of the Ordinances, as it would appear from the last paragraph of the memorandum forwarded with your letter of the 10th instant that Sir Francis Piggott considers that the mutual proposals made at the interviews left points certain/outstanding, and as it is impossible for the Government to consent to any settlement which is not final, I am directed to inform you that the Government is prepared to settle the matter on the following terms:\n\n(i). The Government to pay Sir F. Piggott the sum of $4,666.\n\n(ii). The Government to pay to the firms concerned the following bills for printing:-\n\n(a). Messrs. Noronha & Co. for printing 450 copies of the new Revised Edition, etc. ............... $5,535.00\n\n(b). Messrs. Noronha & Co. for printing 200 copies each of the Code of Civil Procedure, Public Health & Buildings Ordinance and Merchant Shipping Ordinance.\n\n417.00\n\n(c). Messrs. Kelly & Walsh for printing Index to Ordinances, etc....\n\n568.55\n\n(d). Hongkong Printing Press for printing Chronological Table, etc....\n\n204.00\n\nTotal...... $6,724.55\n\n(iii). Sir F. Piggott to undertake to make no further claim for remuneration.\n\n(iv). Sir F. Piggott to assign to the Government free from all incumbrances all his rights, interest and claims of whatsoever nature, including any claim to a present or future copyright, (if any), in the newly revised edition and in the 3 separate volumes containing the Code of Civil Procedure, the Public Health and Buildings\n\nPage 68", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-390 - Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1912 [5-6].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 438196, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-390 - Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1912 [5-6]", "page_number": 402, "title": "CO129-390 - Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1912 [5-6]", "content_text": "Page 393\n\nforth in the schedule hereto may be considered incumbrances which\n\nthe said Sir Francis Taylor Piggott has agreed to do upon the\n\nterms and in the manner hereinafter appearing Now This Indenture\n\nWitnesseth that in pursuance of the said Agreement and in con-\n\nsideration of the premises and further in consideration of the\n\nsum of $4,666.67 paid by the Governor to the said Sir Francis\n\nTaylor Piggott (receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged) and in\n\nconsideration of the covenants on the part of the Governor herein-\n\nafter contained he the said Sir Francis Taylor Piggott doth here-\n\nby assign and surrender unto the Governor All his rights claims\n\nand interest of whatsoever nature including any claim either\n\npresent or future in any copyright of and in the hereby revised\n\nedition of the Ordinances of the Colony of Hongkong and of and in\n\nthe three supplementary volumes containing the Code of Civil\n\nProcedure the Public Health and Building Ordinances and the\n\nMerchant Shipping Consolidation Ordinances and of and in the\n\nIndices respectively To Hold the same unto the Governor absolute-\n\nly And the said Sir Francis Taylor Piggott doth hereby covenant\n\nwith the Governor that he the said Sir Francis Taylor Piggott now\n\nhas full power to grant all and singular the rights claims and\n\ninterest hereby assigned unto the Governor free from all incum-\n\nbrances And It Is Hereby Agreed and Declared that the said Sir\n\nFrancis Taylor Piggott his Executors Administrators and Assigns\n\nwill not make any further claim for remuneration and will hand\n\nover to the Governor the two hundred sets of the Ordinances now\n\nprinted in four volumes for the Government the two hundred and\n\nfifty sets of the Ordinances now printed in four volumes for the\n\nsale to the Public and the 200 copies each of the Code of Civil Procedure The Public Health and Buildings Ordinances and the\n\nMerchant Shipping Consolidation Ordinance together with the\n\nIndices revised and prepared by the said Sir Francis Taylor\n\nPiggott for the absolute use and benefit of the Governor And It Is Hereby Agreed and Declared that the Governor shall have full and\n\nabsolute control and use of the whole newly revised edition and of the three separate editions of the Code of Civil Procedure The\n\nPage 394", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-390 - Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1912 [5-6].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 438244, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-391 - Acting Governor Claud Severn Governor Sir May - 1912 [7-8]", "page_number": 13, "title": "CO129-391 - Acting Governor Claud Severn Governor Sir May - 1912 [7-8]", "content_text": "Experiments have been made in planting broad-leaved trees and sowing seeds of shrubs on the bare hills on the southern slopes of the Kowloon range of hills.\n\nIn Hongkong and Kowloon shade trees have been renewed where required, and flowering trees have been planted in suitable places. Altogether 800 trees have been used for these purposes.\n\nTrees have been planted alongside the Castle Peak-Shatoukok Road to the number of 4,800.\n\nAt Aberdeen pine-tree felling under the timber contract has been carried out in two blocks. Seventy acres have been felled east of the Paper Mill and one hundred and forty acres west of the Aberdeen New Road.\n\nUndergrowth to the extent of about 2,950,000 square feet has been cleared at the cost of the Government, 1,000,000 square feet at the cost of the Military Authorities, and 250,000 square feet at the cost of private individuals in connection with the fight against mosquitoes and malaria. About 300,000 square feet of undergrowth have been cleared for the Public Works Department for the purposes of survey.\n\nSeveral kinds of fodder grass have been experimented with, but nothing has been found equal to the Guinea Grass which is so much grown in the Colony.\n\nThe first and second rice-crops were good. Lichis were a good crop and the railway carried some of the crop to Hongkong.\n\nSeveral samples of vegetable products have been submitted to the Director of Imperial Institute for investigation. His report on the majority of the articles has not yet been received. In a report on tea-seed cake, however, he stated that the article was likely to be of interest to business, as two firms were satisfied with the price and wished to be put in communication with exporters of the cake.\n\nThe Key to the Flora of Hongkong, the New Territories and Kwang-tung Province is now in course of publication. The Editor of the Journal of Botany was unable, at the last minute, to accept it for publication, and it is now being published by the Director of the Royal Gardens at Kew, as an additional series of the Kew Bulletin.\n\nPage 11\n\n(e) LAND GRANTS AND GENERAL VALUE OF LAND. The net amount received from sales of Crown Land and pier rights after deducting expenses of sales was $270,005, an increase of $207,319 on the previous year and $149,170 more than the average amount received for the last 5 years. Of this amount $4,741 was received in respect of the sale of various pier sites and extensions to existing piers, $5,899 was received in respect of sales of land in the New Territories and the remainder from sales of new lots of Crown Land and grants of extensions to existing lots in the island of Hongkong and Old Kowloon. The chief items were received in respect of the sales of Inland Lots 1892 and 1901 which realized $34,600 and $80,100 respectively.\n\nThere has been a considerable increase in the number of building lots in the city sold by the Government during the year. 18 lots having an area of 7 A. 3 R. 353 P. having been sold for a premium of $234,767 as against 6 lots with an area of 1 R. 191 P. and at a premium of $4,776 for the previous year.\n\nThere has again been a very considerable increase both in number and value of private properties which have changed hands during the year, the purchase moneys having exceeded those of the previous year by over six million dollars. There is a good demand for residential houses on the lower levels and in many instances a considerable rise in prices has been obtained, which may be accounted for by the large number of Chinese gentry who have invested in house property in the Colony during the latter part of the year. There is a considerable demand for good mortgage securities with a tendency to accept a reduced rate of interest.\n\nSales of vacant Crown Lands in the New Territories continue evenly and consist chiefly of small building sites at prices ranging from 1 to 2 cents a foot and land for purposes of cultivation at from 4 to 4 cents a foot.\n\nI-LEGISLATION.\n\nSixty-five Ordinances were passed during 1911, of which 41 were amendments to other Ordinances, and 5 were connected with the revision of the Ordinances of Hongkong now being carried out by the Chief Justice (Sir F. T. Piggott, Kt.). This is the largest number of Ordinances ever passed by the Hongkong Legislative Council in one year.\n\nThe most important Ordinances were :-The Defence (Sketching Prevention) Ordinance (No. 3), the Consolidation of the Liquor Laws (No. 9), the University Ordinance (No. 10), the Stamp Duties Management Ordinance (No. 35), the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment (No. 36), the Societies Ordinance (No. 47), the Chinese Partnerships Ordinance (No. 53) and the law relating to Companies (No. 58).\n\nIV. EDUCATION.\n\nThere are 67 Government and Grant Schools, the most important of which is Queen's College. Of these 20 are Upper Grade Schools with a staff competent to give instruction in all subjects of the 7th Standard and above. These latter schools have an average attendance of 4,107, and the medium of instruction in all of them, with the exception of four girls' schools, is English. The 47 remaining schools are all Lower Grade. They comprise one school for British Indians, where English and Urdu are taught, six Government Schools\n\nPage 17", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-391 - Acting Governor Claud Severn Governor Sir May - 1912 [7-8].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 438591, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-391 - Acting Governor Claud Severn Governor Sir May - 1912 [7-8]", "page_number": 390, "title": "CO129-391 - Acting Governor Claud Severn Governor Sir May - 1912 [7-8]", "content_text": "Government licensees.\n\nSettlement between Treaming and or going Opion Farmers.\n\n30. A licensee of the Governor-in-Council under section 25 of this Ordinance, when there is no Opium Farmer, shall, during the last three months of the period of their licences, be subject to such restrictions as to the quantities of prepared opium and dross opium they shall prepare and sell as the Governor-in-Council may from time to time determine.\n\n31.--(1) In the event of any difference arising between the incoming and outgoing Opium Farmers as to the quantities of prepared opium or dross opium produced or sold during the last three months of the term and the value of the same, or as to the nature and quantity of the raw or prepared opium so to be purchased or made over or the values thereof, or as to the value of the furniture, fittings, and implements aforesaid, such difference shall be determined by three arbitrators, one to be appointed by the incoming farmer, one by the outgoing farmer, and one by the Governor.\n\nFailure to appoint arbitrator.\n\nTime for award.\n\nPowers of arbitrators.\n\nImportation and Exportation.\n\n(2.) The majority of the arbitrators may determine, and are hereby empowered to decide in each particular case, what are usual quantities of prepared opium and dross opium within the meaning of this Ordinance.\n\n(3.) The award of the arbitrators or of a majority of them shall be final, and the arbitration or such other settlement shall be held at such time after the end of the term of the outgoing farmer as may seem reasonable to the Governor.\n\n(4.) Any award made may be filed in the Supreme Court pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure for the time being in force.\n\n32. In case either the incoming or the outgoing Opium Farmer fails to appoint an arbitrator within ten days from his receiving notice from the Governor to do so, the other two arbitrators may proceed with the award, and, in case of difference of opinion, they shall appoint an umpire, whose award shall be final, and may be filed in the Supreme Court pursuant to the said Code.\n\n33. The Governor shall fix the time within which the award of the arbitrators is to be completed, and such time shall be specified on the appointment of each arbitrator.\n\n34. The arbitrators shall have the same powers as if the appointment and reference to arbitration had been made by an order of the Supreme Court under the said Code.\n\nImportation and Exportation.\n\n35.(1.) It shall be lawful for the Opium Farmer, subject on each occasion to the consent of the Superintendent signified in writing under his hand having been previously obtained, to bring into the Colony prepared opium, opium dross, dross opium or halan. No person except the Opium Farmer acting with such consent as aforesaid shall bring into the Colony any prepared opium, opium dross, dross opium or halan.\n\n(2.) No person, except the Opium Farmer, his licensees, and persons duly authorized by him in writing, shall have in his possession within the Colony any prepared opium without having a valid certificate under section 39 of this Ordinance.\n\n(3.) No person shall have in his possession within the Colony any dross opium without the knowledge and consent of the Dross Farmer.\n\n(4) No person, except a Dross Farmer or a duly licensed person under this Ordinance, shall, within the Colony, collect opium dross or halan or have in his possession, without the knowledge and consent of the Dross Farmer or his licensees, any opium dross or halan, except such as may be the result of his own smoking or of smoking on his own premises (the burden of proof whereof shall lie on such person), and such opium dross or halan shall in no case exceed two taels in weight: Provided that when any person has in his possession any such opium dross or halan in excess of two taels weight, and gives notice thereof to the Dross Farmer, the Dross Farmer shall purchase the same at a fair and reasonable rate.\n\n(5.) No person shall have in his possession any opium dross or halan except such as results from smoking the Opium Farmer's prepared opium or dross opium.\n\n(6.) No person shall sell any opium dross or halan except to the Opium Farmer or Dross Farmer.\n\n36. It shall be unlawful for the Opium Farmer, his licensees or any other persons whomsoever to export or cause to be exported prepared opium or dross opium from the Colony to China or French Indo-China or to any country which prohibits the import of prepared opium or dross opium.\n\nProvided always that this section shall not be construed as applying to the possession by a passenger by steamer from Hongkong to China or French Indo-China or to any such country as aforesaid of a quantity of prepared opium or dross opium, to be used for personal consumption on the voyage, not exceeding five mace for every day of duration of the voyage.\n\nProvided always that the names of all countries which prohibit the import of prepared opium or dross opium shall be notified in The Gazette.\n\n37. No person shall export any prepared opium or dross opium from the Colony to any country or place to which it is lawful to export the same except he shall first obtain the permission in writing of the Superintendent who may require such particulars of destination, mode of conveyance, and other information as he may deem necessary.\n\nSale of Prepared Opium.\n\n38.--(1) No person, except the Opium Farmer, shall prepare opium within the Colony.\n\n(2.) No person, except the Opium Farmer and any duly licensed person under this Ordinance, shall sell or offer or expose for sale any prepared opium or dross opium.\n\n(3.) No person except the Opium Farmer or Dross Farmer or any person duly licensed under this Ordinance to deal in or prepare dross opium shall deal in or prepare any dross opium.\n\nProvided that no trader in opium shall be prevented from bona fide testing samples of opium covered by a certificate under the proviso to section 6 of this Ordinance and keeping the same for the purposes of his trade, the burden of proof whereof shall in each case be upon any person alleging the same in his defence.\n\n39.--(1.) Every person selling prepared opium, shall deliver therewith a certificate, in English or Chinese, in such form as the Governor may from time to time approve, specifying the date of the sale, the name of the purchaser, and the quantity sold.\n\n(2.) The certificate shall be issued from books provided with counterfoils, and both the certificates and the counterfoils shall bear corresponding and consecutive printed numbers.\n\n(3.) The certificate shall be stamped by the seller with the stamp used by him in carrying on his business, and shall be evidence of the facts therein stated; and shall not be transferable.\n\n(4.) If any person is charged with the possession of prepared opium without a valid certificate, he shall not be entitled to produce or put in evidence, or to be produced or put in evidence any certificate, as covering the prepared opium in respect of which he is charged, prior in date to the last certificate granted to him, unless he has received permission from the Opium Farmer to keep or store prepared opium, which permission shall appear on the certificate produced or put in evidence.\n\n(5.) When there is no Opium Farmer the certificate shall be in the Form No. 2 in Schedule B to this Ordinance.\n\n(6.) No person shall sell any prepared opium or dross opium to any female or to any person being under sixteen years of age.\n\nForm No. 2.\n\n40. No certificate granted by the Opium Farmer under section 39 of this Ordinance or by any licensee under the Opium Farmer shall be valid after noon of the third day from the date of the expiration of such Opium Farmer's privilege.\n\nPage 390\n\nPage 391", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-391 - Acting Governor Claud Severn Governor Sir May - 1912 [7-8].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 444306, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-403 - Governor Sir May Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1913 [8-10]", "page_number": 303, "title": "CO129-403 - Governor Sir May Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1913 [8-10]", "content_text": "#180\n\nthem for murder and piracy was not a legal warrant and one beyond his jurisdiction, and that therefore the first order of the Lord Chief Justice for the release of Kwok A Sing was right and ought to be affirmed.\" In Stallmann's case, which was an Extradition case, it was also held that the warrant upon the inquiry before the Magistrate with respect to the first committal was itself invalid and the Court ordered the applicant to be set at liberty. In both Kwok A Sing's case and Stallmann's case it was decided that the second committal could be made. The warrant of committal by Mr. Irving was a valid order and was within his jurisdiction. The offence in the present case is exactly the same offence as in the case before Mr. Irving.\n\nI was referred by Mr. Hodgson, Crown Solicitor, to two decisions with respect to a writ of Habeas Corpus in Extradition proceedings. The first of the two cases referred to by Mr. Hodgson was in re Harsha, American and English Annotated cases, Vol. VI., 496. This is a Canadian case and was decided in 1906. The head note in this case is as follows:- \"Where a person has been arrested in Extradition proceedings and released on habeas corpus on the ground that there is no proper evidence showing the commission of the alleged offence or identifying the alleged forged document he may be re-arrested in subsequent extradition proceedings for the same offence upon the discovery of further and new evidence to supply the deficiencies.\"\n\n\"The doctrine of res judicata, former jeopardy, and autrefois acquit are not applicable to extradition proceedings.\"\n\n\"The English Habeas Corpus Act (31 Charles II., C2, paragraph 6) does not apply to extradition proceedings.\"\n\nOur law is different. The Habeas Corpus Act does apply to extradition proceedings. The second habeas corpus in Stallmann's case was under Section 6 of the Habeas Corpus Act. The prisoner was discharged with respect to the first proceedings by the High Court of Calcutta pursuant to a section in the Indian Code of Civil Procedure 1888, which is similar to habeas corpus proceedings. In Kwok A Sing's case the second habeas corpus was under the Act. It does not state in the report whether the first habeas corpus was under the Act or at Common Law. It merely used the words \"habeas corpus.\" I might mention that the first committal was in respect of extradition proceedings. In the second committal Kwok A Sing was to take his trial at the Supreme Court of Hongkong on a charge of piracy jure gentium. In re parte Woodhall (20 Q.B.D. 827) it was decided by the Court of Appeal that extradition was a criminal matter. This was in 1888, and it was the first time that any of our Courts of Law had decided that extradition was a criminal matter. The next case referred to by Mr. Hodgson was in re Kelly 26 Federal reporter, p852. This is an American case and was decided in 1886. The head note is as follows:\n\n\"Where a party accused of crime has been arrested and had an examination before commissioner duly appointed and became discharged by order of the Executive on the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to justify his extradition for the crime charged, he MAY be again arrested for the same offence and compelled to submit to a second examination without the issuance of a second mandate by the Executive.\n\nIf the commissioner should commit the prisoner upon the second examination and it should be apparent that he had no clearer or more convincing testimony as to the truth of the charge than was presented at the former examination, the circuit court has power to review his testimony and correct his error.\"\n\nWith respect to the above case, I need only say that it has no connection with the present case, which relates solely to Section 6 of the Habeas Corpus Act.\n\nAs I have just stated, my decision in Point 4 is given in favour of the defendant, having regard solely to the construction to be placed on Section 6 of the Habeas Corpus Act. It is the same offence in the two cases. The order in the first case was a valid order and within the jurisdiction of the committing Magistrate. Under these circumstances, the section states that such person shall not be again imprisoned or committed. My decision with respect to Point 4 is therefore in favour of the defendant. I order the defendant to be discharged.\n\nAt the conclusion of the reading of the decision the Crown Solicitor asked:\n\n\"Do I understand that in a nutshell your judgment is in favour of the Crown, but that the matter is *res judicata*, and you order the defendant's discharge, on that point?\"\n\nMr. Hazeland-Yes.\n\n(To Mr. Brutton)-\"You were going to raise a point about a political crime.\"\n\nMr. Brutton-\"Not now, your Worship.\"\n\nMr. Hazeland (to the Crown Solicitor)-\"Are you going to file an application for a case stated?\"\n\nMr. Hodgson-\"I do not know yet. I must consider that.\"\n\nMr. Brutton-\"Then in that case I hope your Worship will hear me on the point that there can be no appeal.\"", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-403 - Governor Sir May Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1913 [8-10].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 463979, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-436 - Acting Governor Claud Sever & Governor Sir May & Public Offices - 1916 [11-12]", "page_number": 242, "title": "CO129-436 - Acting Governor Claud Sever & Governor Sir May & Public Offices - 1916 [11-12]", "content_text": "# Articles of the Company\n\n## Transfer of Shares\n\n58. No share shall, save as provided by Article 65, be transferred to any person who is not for the time being a member of the Company so long as any member is willing to purchase the same at the fair value.\n\n59. In order to ascertain whether any member is willing to purchase a share offered for sale, the seller, whether entitled in his own right or otherwise, shall give notice to the Permanent General Manager or General Manager for the time being of the Company that he desires to sell the share, and such notice shall constitute the Permanent General Manager or General Manager his agent to contract with any member for the sale of the share at the fair value to be determined as mentioned in Article 60. If the Permanent General Manager or General Manager fails for the space of three months after the receipt by him of such notice to find a member willing to purchase the share, or fails within the like period to give notice thereof to the seller, the seller shall be at liberty to sell such shares to any person at any price, but subject to the provisions of Articles 63 and 66.\n\n## How Price to be Fixed\n\n60. The price of a share offered for sale through the Permanent General Manager or General Manager, pursuant to the last preceding clause, shall be fixed in the first instance by the seller. If a member otherwise willing to purchase the share is not willing to give the price named, and the seller is not willing to accept the price offered, the value shall be fixed by the Auditor of the Company for the time being, whose fee for such valuation shall be payable by the seller. In fixing the value, the Auditor shall be considered to be acting as an expert, and not as an arbitrator, and accordingly the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to arbitration, or the provisions of any ordinance now or hereafter in force in Hongkong, relating to arbitration, or the Arbitration Act 1889, shall not apply.\n\n61. If two or more members be willing to buy at the price named by the seller, or at the value fixed under Article 60, then the Permanent General Manager or General Manager shall give notice to such two or more members inviting them to send in tenders for the purchase, and the highest tenderer shall be deemed to be the purchaser. If no tenders be sent in, or if the amount mentioned in such tenders be the same, then the shares are to be offered to the members in such order as shall be determined by lot drawn on behalf of such members by the Permanent General Manager or General Manager in such manner as the Board shall think fit.\n\n## Sale of Shares by Representatives or Directors\n\n62. On the death or bankruptcy of any member, the Directors may at any time within three months of such death or bankruptcy resolve that the legal personal representative or Trustee in bankruptcy of such deceased or bankrupt member (hereinafter referred to as his \"representatives\") do sell and transfer his shares in the Company to the Directors' nominee or nominees, at the fair value to be fixed by the Auditors for the time being of the Company as mentioned in Article 60, and upon such resolution being passed, the Directors shall give notice thereof to such member or his representatives, who shall thereupon be bound to sell and transfer such shares to the Directors' nominee or nominees (whose name or names and the amount of shares to be taken up by each, if more than one, may either be stated in the resolution or the said notice) at the fair value.\n\n63. The Directors for the time being of the Company may at any time, by giving twelve months' notice in writing to any Director of the Company (including any Director who shall have retired or otherwise ceased to act as such), require such Director to sell and transfer his shares in the Company to the Directors for the time being, or their nominee or nominees, at the fair value to be fixed by the Auditors for the time being of the Company as mentioned in Article 60, and upon such notice being given, such Director shall be bound to sell and transfer his shares to the Directors for the time being or their nominee or nominees, at the fair value, and shall, if then acting, cease to act as a Director. The fair value, when fixed, shall be payable (unless otherwise mutually arranged) as to one-fourth thereof at the date of the expiration of the said notice, and as to the balance by...", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-436 - Acting Governor Claud Sever & Governor Sir May & Public Offices - 1916 [11-12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 477427, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-450 - Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1918 [10-12]", "page_number": 112, "title": "CO129-450 - Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1918 [10-12]", "content_text": "# HONGKONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL\n\n## The Budget\n\n**THE COLONIAL SECRETARY** moved the second reading of the Bill intituled \"An Ordinance to apply a sum not exceeding ten million six hundred and five thousand three hundred and forty-five dollars to the Public Service of the year 1919.\"\n\nThe cost of a work should appear in such statements and not, as at present, be entirely lost sight of.\n\nIt is a laborious business to extract from the estimates as now presented the cost of the working of many Government departments and undertakings, and it would almost seem that the purpose is to befog the enquirer rather than to assist him. Some comments in the Press the other day illustrate what I mean. Owing to the figures of the Public Works Department and the Water Works being mixed up, it is very difficult to say what the cost to the Colony of either Department is.\n\n**THE COLONIAL SECRETARY** seconded.\n\nHon. MR. D'Almada I propose to follow the usual procedure and, as the senior Unofficial Member for the time being, to address the Council on behalf of all Unofficial members. There are one or two matters to which I wish to refer on my own behalf, which I will indicate later, and other Unofficial members have some matters they also wish to speak about.\n\nI need hardly say that we all endorse your expressions of sympathy with Sir Henry and Lady May, and sincerely hope that the improvement in their daughter's health will continue and that the Governor will be able to enjoy a much-needed rest and holiday.\n\nI think the Government are to be congratulated on the very satisfactory state of the Colony's finance. There has been a great improvement in this respect during recent years, and much credit is due to those responsible for the administration. It should not, however, be lost sight of that some of our revenue is not derived from a permanent source, and that taxation which is permissible in war-time will have to cease as soon as the war ends.\n\nThe first matter to which I wish to draw attention is the form in which the estimates are presented, and to ask that radical alterations be made in this form. I do not think it can be contended that it is either businesslike or clear. As an instance, I would ask you to refer to the third item on page 8, which reads: \"Assessed taxes, Ordinance 6 of 1901, approved estimate 1918, $1,857,400, estimate 1919, $2,010,340.\" This amount includes the earnings of certain Government undertakings, such as waterworks, and should be detailed in such a way that the working result of any one of them could be seen. It is important that proper statements of individual works be shown, particularly as Government undertakings tend to increase.\n\nI feel quite sure that our able Colonial Treasurer could greatly improve matters were he allowed a free hand; if not, let expert chartered accountants be employed.\n\nThe monthly financial statements of assets and liabilities are very difficult to understand. For instance, the shipping control account is shown on the 30th June as a liability of $81,509.47, when it is well known the result will be a very profitable one to the Government. It is difficult to say where the sinking funds of the two loans are, and we should like to know and be assured that the sinking fund for the Sterling Loan is invested in that currency.\n\nThe value of property purchased by the Government for staff occupation or other purposes is not shown as an asset, which, I think, is wrong, and the position would be more correctly set out by including valuation of such property. I do not think it is right that the value, for instance, of quarters, which amounts to a very large sum, should be lost sight of. The rents charged for the recent Government purchases of house property at the Peak show a return of about 5 per cent. on the capital only, without providing for any depreciation. We are in favour of providing quarters, but would like a record of the cost kept.\n\nWe presume that the Government have considered the question of the conversion of the Sterling Loan into one of local currency at the existing high rate of exchange, a financial transaction which should not be beyond the powers of the Government's bankers. A redemption by purchase at a considerable discount could, no doubt, be effected as regards a large portion of this Loan. There would be no loss in interest by investments of the balance in 5 per cent. War Loan pending complete redemption. The saving to the Colony, comparing recent rates with that of 2 to the dollar, would be in the neighbourhood of $5/6,000,000.\n\nWe do not think the best results in the interests of shipping will be obtained by the Hongkong Observatory having a different Storm Signal Code from that in use at the Coast Ports of China. Before this new Code was adopted, the matter was not sufficiently clearly explained to those who represent shipping here. Without going into the merits of the dispute between the Royal Observatory and the Coast Inspector in Shanghai, I may say that I think they both disregarded the interests of those who have to pay if accidents result from the confusion they have created. An Observatory is of little use unless it is working in harmony with neighbouring stations, and we wish the Government to take up this question of Storm Signals with the authorities in China and arrange for the use of identical codes. Every precaution should be taken to avoid typhoon disasters, and a heavy responsibility rests upon both the Royal Observatory here and the Meteorological Authorities in respect.\n\nI notice that it has been estimated that receipts from land sales will amount to $200,000 during the year, not a very large sum, for which, in my opinion, the land policy of the Government is to blame. The result of the present policy of short leases, for which a high premium is demanded, and a high Crown Rent imposed, in addition to onerous terms for road making and drainage, is the present shortage of better-class houses. This policy was no doubt inaugurated in the interest of the community as a whole, and to prevent, as far as possible, profit being made in land transactions. While a very small annual benefit, as shown by the estimated figure of $200,000, may have been secured to the community, it has been done at very great inconvenience to those who wish to live in better-class houses, and the effect upon land transactions, as far as existing leased property is concerned, has been exactly the opposite of what was intended, for the supply of new houses having been interfered with, the value of house property has been forced up both from a rental and sale point of view by the ordinary rule of supply and demand.\n\nIt is a matter for regret that so many conditions and distinctions have been attached to the War allowance, to the payment of which we had previously agreed, and, upon further consideration of the subject, we wish the whole question referred back to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and a recommendation sent from us that the War Bonus, as from 1st January, 1918, should be 10 per cent. on the present amount received by each member of the Civil Service, whether permanently or temporarily employed, without condition or distinction. In the meantime, we propose to move in Committee a supplementary vote of a sufficient sum for this purpose.\n\nThe Government's policy having checked the natural supply of houses, it is for them to undertake the laying out of sites and the leasing of these prepared sites at low Crown Rents to those who desire immediately to build.\n\nIn what I have said regarding land sales, I am speaking entirely for myself; it is a matter which I have not discussed with the other Unofficial members.\n\nThere is another point which requires consideration. Very large properties situated in the centre of both the City of Victoria and Kowloon are in occupation of the War Department. Many of these sites must be quite unsuitable for military purposes or for military quarters, and the whole matter requires looking into with a view to an exchange of property, whereby the Garrison would find more suitable quarters, and the business community more space for development.\n\nWe shall be glad to hear that the Government intend to take this matter up.\n\nOn page 40, we have the estimated cost of the Royal Observatory. We consider that a Committee should be appointed to enquire into and revise, where necessary, the scale of pay drawn by the entire Government Service. This should be done without any further delay, as it is a matter that will probably take some considerable time to go into. The same Committee might also enquire into the working of the Widows and Orphans Fund, regarding which we are not at all satisfied that the contributors are being fairly dealt with, but my hon. friend who represents the Chamber of Commerce proposes to ask for some information on this subject.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-450 - Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1918 [10-12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 483775, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-461 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1920 [5-7]", "page_number": 128, "title": "CO129-461 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1920 [5-7]", "content_text": "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONGKONG\n\nORIGINAL JURISDICTION\n\nSuit No. 46 of 1901.\n\nThe Attorney General v. Sarah Jaques, Executrix of Joseph Jacques, deceased.\n\nTuesday 25th June 1901.\n\nX.C.M.G.\n\nJudgment of His Hon. Sir John W. Carrington, Chief Justice.\n\nPlaintiff. Defendant.\n\n126\n\nIn this case the parties filed a memorandum of agreement under Section 88 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the purpose of obtaining the finding of the Court upon a question of law which is stated in a special case annexed to the memorandum. By the memorandum it is agreed that if the finding of the Court is in the affirmative of the question submitted to it, the defendant is to pay to the Colonial Treasurer certain probate duty in respect of the estate of her testator, while if the finding is in the negative the plaintiff is to withdraw his claim for payment of that probate duty.\n\nThe facts upon which the question arises are set forth in the special case, and may be shortly stated as follows:\n\nThe testator died in England on the 23rd January, 1900, and probate of his will was granted by the High Court of Justice Probate Division to the defendant on the 2nd May, 1900.\n\nAn exemplification of the probate was sealed with the seal of this Court in its Probate Jurisdiction on the 7th August, 1900, and probate duty was paid on property of the estate in this Colony, consisting of shares in various companies of the total value of $629,367.70.\n\nSince this payment was made it has been ascertained that, in addition to these shares, the testator was entitled to the undermentioned parcels of shares namely:\n\n(1) A parcel of 767 shares in the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, which were on the London Register of the Corporation and the Scrip or Share certificates which were at the date of his death, in the possession and under the control of the corporation in London, subject to a lien or charge in favour of the Corporation amounting to £975.5.6d;\n\n(2) A parcel of 705 shares in the same Corporation which were on the Shanghai Register of the Corporation and were at the date of his death, in the possession and under the control of the Corporation at Shanghai, subject to a lien or charge in favour of the Corporation amounting to Taels 252,412.72 (Shanghai Sycee).\n\nThe Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation was incorporated in Hongkong by Ordinance No. 5 of 1866 and exists and is governed by the provisions of that Ordinance and of the Deed of Settlement mentioned therein and of certain later Ordinances extending and amending the Original Ordinance of Incorporation.\n\nThe Head Office of the Corporation is in Hongkong, and the business of the Corporation is managed and controlled by a Court of Directors in Hongkong. A Register of Shareholders is kept in Hongkong, a separate volume being opened and kept for Hongkong Shareholders, for English Shareholders, for Shanghai Shareholders and for Calcutta Shareholders respectively.\n\n-1-", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-461 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1920 [5-7].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 483780, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-461 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1920 [5-7]", "page_number": 133, "title": "CO129-461 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1920 [5-7]", "content_text": "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONGKONG\n\nORIGINAL JURISDICTION\n\nSuit No. 46 of 1901.\n\nThe Attorney General v. Sarah Jaques, Executrix of Joseph Jacques, deceased.\n\n1\n\nTuesday 25th June 1901\n\nJudgment of His Hon. Sir John W. Carrington, K.C.M.G. Chief Justice.\n\nPlaintiff. Defendant.\n\n130\n\nIn this case the parties filed a memorandum of agreement under Section 88 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the purpose of obtaining the finding of the Court upon a question of law which is stated in a special case annexed to the memorandum.\n\nBy the memorandum it is agreed that if the finding of the Court is in the affirmative of the question submitted to it, the defendant is to pay to the Colonial Treasurer certain probate duty in respect of the estate of her testator, while if the finding is in the negative the plaintiff is to withdraw his claim for payment of that probate duty.\n\nThe facts upon which the question arises are set forth in the special case, and may be shortly stated as follows: -\n\nThe testator died in England on the 23rd January, 1900, and probate of his will was granted by the High Court of Justice Probate Division to the defendant on the 2nd May, 1900.\n\nAn exemplification of the probate was sealed with the seal of this Court in its Probate Jurisdiction on the 7th August, 1900, and probate duty was paid on property of the estate in this Colony, consisting of shares in various companies of the total value of $629,367.70.\n\nSince this payment was made it has been ascertained that, in addition to these shares, the testator was entitled to the undermentioned parcels of shares namely: -\n\n(1) A parcel of 767 shares in the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, which were on the London Register of the Corporation and the Scrip or Share certificates which were at the date of his death, in the possession and under the control of the corporation in London, subject to a lien or charge in favour of the Corporation amounting to £975.5.6d;\n\n(2) A parcel of 705 shares in the same Corporation which were on the Shanghai Register of the Corporation and were at the date of his death, in the possession and under the control of the Corporation at Shanghai, subject to a lien or charge in favour of the Corporation amounting to Taels 252,412.72 (Shanghai Sycee).\n\nThe Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation was incorporated in Hongkong by Ordinance No. E of 1866 and exists and is governed by the provisions of that Ordinance and of the Deed of Settlement mentioned therein and of certain later Ordinances extending and amending the Original Ordinance of incorporation.\n\nThe Head office of the Corporation is in Hongkong, and the business of the Corporation is managed and controlled by a Court of Directors in Hongkong. A Register of Shareholders is kept in Hongkong, a separate volume being opened and kept for Hongkong Shareholders, for English Shareholders, for Shanghai Shareholders and for Calcutta Shareholders respectively.\n\n-1-", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-461 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1920 [5-7].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 486466, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-466 - Individuals - 1920", "page_number": 145, "title": "CO129-466 - Individuals - 1920", "content_text": "## HONG KONG\n**RESP** \n**C.O** 5903 \n**REC!** FEB 201 \n143 \nas late \nArt. \n1920 \n**Ind. Lab.** \ntprevious Paper. 13/3/ \n5908 \n**Authentication of letters of Administrations, Enquiries requirements for in Colony.** \nMind (01 del 2-1889 - order 23-1915 + Did: 3-1901) 20 Op cover for 79.4 have 98907. S \nabsequent Paper. \n**Mr. Shipway.** \n**My Peterson.** \nJee \nDo \n**Mr. Rockett.** \n\nYou are to Know? \nGJP. 4/2. \n27017.19 6 47459.08 Hongkong. Send them (for perusal return) copies of the Evidence Ordinance (`20 of 1889` amended by `23 of 1915`) and the Code of Civil Procedure (`Ordinance 3 of 1901`), calling particular attention to sec.24 of the Evidence Ordinance and quoting the last para. of the Pro. Solicitor's Minute attached to `47459.08`. \nIf you query \n9/2/20 \nTopp/43 \n4Rd 52.20. \nC.ft. 6/2. \nWŁ 26699-33 50,000 11/19 **H. St. G.** 122/41.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-466 - Individuals - 1920.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 486470, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-466 - Individuals - 1920", "page_number": 149, "title": "CO129-466 - Individuals - 1920", "content_text": "**STERLING & EVANS, SOLICITORS.**\n\n**HAROLD S. EVANS**\n**COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS.**\n\n19th February 1920\n\nDear Sir,\n\nWe are in receipt of your letter of the 13th inst and thank you for sending for our inspection the copies of the Hongkong Code of Civil Procedure and the Evidence Act. We now return these documents.\n\nWe observe that \"matters testamentary\" are excepted in the Code (Section 3) and that the Evidence Act does not refer to deeds.\n\nInasmuch as it will be a considerable undertaking for our client to execute the Power of Attorney before a Notary as he lives in the heart of Wales, we should be glad if you could tell us whether, if the power were lodged in the Central Office according to the usual practice, the Hongkong Authorities would accept the official copy without further formality.\n\nWe are,\nYour obedient servants,\n\nSTERLING & EVANS\n\nThe Under Secretary of State for the Colonies\nColonial Office\nS.W.1\n\nTELEPHONE No. 124.\nLLYS ALED. WELD STREET, LLANGHES—THURSDAYS ONLY.\n202. H. VEL... \nREL! 15 FEB 201 \n147 \n`5908/1920`", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-466 - Individuals - 1920.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 491516, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-474 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1922 [1-4]", "page_number": 57, "title": "CO129-474 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1922 [1-4]", "content_text": "COPY.\n\nIN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONGKONG\n\nORIGINAL JURISDICTION\n\n55\n\nSUIT NO. 46 of 1901.\n\nThe Attorney General\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nVs.\n\nSarah Jaques, Executrix of\n\nJoseph Jaques, deceased.\n\nDefendant.\n\nTuesday 25th June. 1901.\n\nJUDGMENT OF HIS HON. SIR JOHN W. CARRINGTON, Kt. C.M.G.\n\nCHIEF JUSTICE.\n\nIn this case the parties filed a memorandum of agreement\n\nunder Section 88 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the purpose\n\nof obtaining the finding of the Court upon a question of law, which is stated in a special case annexed to the memorandum. By the memorandum it is agreed that if the finding of the Court is in the affirmative of the question submitted to it, the defendant is to pay to the Colonial Treasurer certain probate duty in respect of the estate of her testator, while if the finding is in the negative the Plaintiff is to withdraw his claim for payment of that probate duty.\n\nThe facts upon which the question arises are set forth\n\nin the special case, and may be shortly stated as follows:-\n\nThe testator died in England on the 23rd January, 1900, and probate of his will was granted by the High Court of Justice Probate Division to the defendant on the 2nd May, 1900.\n\nAn exemplification of the probate was sealed with the seal of this Court in its Probate Jurisdiction on the 7th August 1900, and probate duty was paid on property of the estate in this Colony consisting of shares in various companies of the total value of $529,367.70.\n\nSince", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-474 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1922 [1-4].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 491525, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-474 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1922 [1-4]", "page_number": 66, "title": "CO129-474 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1922 [1-4]", "content_text": "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONGKONG\n\nIN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONGKONG\n\nORIGINAL JURISDICTION\n\nSUIT NO. 46 of 1901.\n\nThe Attorney General\n\nORIGINAL JURISDICTION\n\nSUIT NO. 46 of 1901.\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nV.\n\nThe Attorney General\n\nSarah Jaques, Executrix of Joseph Jaques, deceased.\n\nDefendant.\n\n64\n\nV.\n\nSarah Jaques, Executrix\n\nof Joseph Jaques, deceased.\n\nJUDGMENT.\n\nSOLICITORS,\n\nJOHNSON, STOKES & MASTER,\n\n&c.,\n\nHongkong.\n\nFol.37 E\n\nTuesday 25th June, 1901,\n\nJUDGMENT OF HIS HON. SIR JOHN J. CARINGTON, Kt.\n\nCHIEF JUSTICE.\n\nIn this case the parties filed a memorandum of agreement under Section 68 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the purpose of obtaining the finding of the Court upon a question of law, which is stated in the special case annexed to the memorandum. By the memorandum it is agreed that if the finding of the Court is in the affirmative of the question submitted to it, the defendant is to pay to the Colonial Treasurer certain probate duty in respect of the estate of her testator, while if the finding is in the negative the Plaintiff is to withdraw his claim for payment of that probate duty.\n\nThe facts upon which the question arises are set forth in the special case, and may be shortly stated as follows:-\n\nThe testator died in England on the 23rd January, 1900,\n\nand probate of his will was granted by the High Court of Justice Probate Division to the defendant on the 2nd May, 1900.\n\nAn exemplification of the probate was sealed with the seal of this Court in its Probate Jurisdiction on the 7th August 1900, and probate duty was paid on property of the estate in this Colony consisting of shares in various companies of the total value of £29,367.70.\n\nSince...", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-474 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1922 [1-4].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 491774, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-474 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1922 [1-4]", "page_number": 315, "title": "CO129-474 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1922 [1-4]", "content_text": "Enclosure /.\n\nHONGKONG.\n\nNo. 7 OF 1922.\n\nI assent to this Ordinance.\n\n7.2. Stubbs\n\nGovernor.\n\n24th March, 1922.\n\nAn Ordinance to make temporary provision for the appointment of solicitors to appear in the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in certain emergencies.\n\n[24th March, 1922.]\n\nBE it enacted by the Governor of Hongkong, with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council thereof,\n\nas follows:-\n\n1. This Ordinance may be cited as the Supreme Court (Original Jurisdiction) Emergency Ordinance, 1922.\n\n2. In this Ordinance :-\n\n“Cause” shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Code of Civil Procedure.\n\n“Original Jurisdiction” means the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on the trial of causes under the Code of Civil Procedure.\n\nDefinition.\n\n3. It shall be lawful for the Chief Justice to authorise any duly enrolled solicitor of the Supreme Court to appear and act as a barrister in any cause in the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in any case in which he may think it desirable to do so having regard to all the circumstances.\n\n4. Such provisions of the following Ordinances as may conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are suspended during the operation of this Ordinance :--\n\n(a.) The Legal Practitioners Ordinance, 1871.\n\n(b.) The Supreme Court Ordinance, 1873.\n\n(c.) The Supreme Court (Summary Jurisdiction) Ordinance, 1878.\n\n(d) The Code of Civil Procedure.\n\n(e.) The Legal Practitioners Amendment Ordinance, 1913.\n\nOrdinances Nos. 1 of 1871, 3 of 1873, 3 of 1879, 19 of 1901, and 19 of 1913.\n\nPage 314", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-474 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1922 [1-4].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 492801, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-476 - Acting Governor Claud Severn & Governor Sir Stubbs - 1922 [8-12]", "page_number": 154, "title": "CO129-476 - Acting Governor Claud Severn & Governor Sir Stubbs - 1922 [8-12]", "content_text": "# Ordinance\n\nNo. 3 of 1901.\n\nRight to payment or compensation for acts done during the war.\n\nProvided also that except in cases where a claim for payment or compensation can be brought under section 4 of this Ordinance, nothing in this section shall prevent—\n\n(a) the institution or prosecution of proceedings in respect of any rights under, or alleged breaches of, contract, if the proceedings are instituted within one year from the termination of the war or the date when the cause of action arose, whichever may be the later;\n\n(b) the institution or prosecution of civil proceedings founded on negligence in respect of damage to person or property elsewhere than in a foreign country;\n\n(c) the institution or prosecution of civil proceedings in respect of damage to person or property in any foreign country, or of the requisitioning of property in any foreign country, if the consent of the Attorney-General to the institution or prosecution of the proceedings is obtained, but such consent shall not be given if the person seeking to institute or prosecute the proceeding would have had no remedy if the act complained of had been done in the Colony, or if other provision has been made by treaty or convention for the settlement of claims of the class in question;\n\n(d) the institution or prosecution of proceedings respecting the validity or infringement of a patent.\n\n(2.) For the purposes of this section, an action against the Government which can be brought under the provisions of chapter XVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure shall be deemed to be a legal proceeding, and the proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted at the date on which the statement of claim is filed.\n\n(3.) For the purposes of this section, a certificate by the Colonial Secretary that any act, matter, or thing was done under the authority of a person so holding office or employed as aforesaid, or was done in the execution of a duty, or that any sum of money was acquired by the Government of the Colony of Hongkong for the defence of the realm, or for the public safety, or for the defence of the Colony, or for the enforcement of discipline, or otherwise in the public interest, shall be sufficient evidence of such authority or duty and of such act, matter, or thing having been done thereunder, or in execution thereof, or that such sum of money was acquired by the said Government in consequence of such act, matter, or thing, and any such act, matter, or thing done by or under the authority of a person so holding office or so employed as aforesaid shall be deemed to have been done in good faith unless the contrary is proved.\n\n(4.) Nothing in this section shall prejudice or prevent the institution or prosecution of proceedings for giving effect to a final judgment given before the passing of this Ordinance by any court of final resort or by any other court where the judgment at the passing of this Ordinance is not then the subject of a pending appeal.\n\n4. Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing section restricting the right of taking or prosecuting legal proceedings, any person not being the subject of a state which has been at war with His Majesty during the war and not having been a subject of such a state whilst that state was so at war with His Majesty, and being the owner of a ship which, or any cargo space or passenger accommodation in which, has in fact been either requisitioned or controlled during the war by or for the Government of the Colony of Hongkong, whether on behalf of His Majesty's Government or not, shall be entitled to payment in respect of such requisition or control, and to compensation for loss or damage to such ship which was directly due to war risk, in accordance with the following provisions of this section, but not further or otherwise:\n\n(1) Payment in respect of such requisition or control shall be made in accordance with the rates and conditions contained in the Blue Book Reports, together with any additional payment which shall have been expressly promised in writing, or credited to the owner, by or on behalf of the Government of the Colony of Hongkong.\n\n(2.) Compensation shall also be paid in respect of any ship so requisitioned or controlled for any loss or damage directly due to war risk during the period of requisition or control, and such compensation shall be calculated on the ascertained value of the ship, if she shall have been totally lost, at the time of such loss, or if she shall have been injured, on the ascertained value of such injury, and shall be assessed without taking into account any increase of market values of tonnage due to the war.\n\n(3.) Any such payment or compensation shall be assessed by the tribunal hereinafter mentioned.\n\n6.(1.) The tribunal for assessing any payment or compensation claimed under this Ordinance shall be appointed by the Governor by notification in the Gazette, and shall consist of three members and shall be constituted in the manner following:\n\n(a.) The president of the tribunal shall be such judge as the judges may mutually arrange;\n\n(b) of the two other members of the tribunal, one shall be nominated by the Governor, and the other by the claimant, provided that if such claimant fails to nominate a member, it shall be lawful for the Governor to appoint a second member on his behalf.\n\n(2.) Nothing in this Ordinance shall confer on any person a right to payment or compensation unless notice of the claim shall have been given to the Registrar of the Supreme Court within one year from the termination of the war, or the date when the transaction giving rise to the claim took place, whichever may be the later.\n\n(3.) It shall be lawful for the Chief Justice to make rules of procedure for the tribunals to be constituted under this section, whether any such tribunal shall have been constituted or not, provided always that, in the absence of any such rules, the procedure to be followed before any such tribunal shall be decided by the president of that tribunal.\n\n(4) Any tribunal when constituted under this section shall have all such powers as are vested in the Supreme Court or in a judge on the occasion of any action in respect of the following matters:\n\n(a) enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them upon oath or otherwise as it may think fit;\n\n(b) compelling the production of any documents;\n\nand\n\n(c) punishing persons guilty of contempt.\n\n(5.) The decision of a majority of the members of any tribunal constituted under this section shall be final, provided that the president of the tribunal in any case, at his discretion, reserve a point of law for the decision of the Full Court, and the decision of the Full Court on such point of law shall be final.\n\nPage 152", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-476 - Acting Governor Claud Severn & Governor Sir Stubbs - 1922 [8-12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 492818, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-476 - Acting Governor Claud Severn & Governor Sir Stubbs - 1922 [8-12]", "page_number": 171, "title": "CO129-476 - Acting Governor Claud Severn & Governor Sir Stubbs - 1922 [8-12]", "content_text": "I \n\nS' \n\n5 \n\n2 5 \n\nان رام الله يا \n\nAT WOD WOD EVEN \n\nA. \n\n169 \n\nThe commenced a separate action on behalf of each ship, Statement of Claim sent herewith is the action commenced in respect of the steamship \"Wollowra\" and fully sets out the nature of our clients' claim.\n\nThe Government have in hand today as representing the aforesaid earnings $2,251,204.11, and the shipowners concerned consider that this sum should be returned to them now that it is not wanted for war purposes and is not required by the Home Government for war purposes.\n\nWe would point out that at the very earliest opportunity and as far back as 1918 we, on behalf of the shipowners concerned, wrote to the Hongkong Government and pointed out that the Government's action was without legal authority, that there were certain forms of legal procedure which the Government could adopt for the purpose of carrying out their policy, but the Government failed to adopt such courses.\n\nThe courses which the Government could have adopted are set out in our letter of the 19th April 1918, set out in paragraph 5 of the printed petition. Notwithstanding the warnings as to the legal position, the Government of Hongkong took no steps to place their action on a legal basis.\n\nOn the 5th December 1919, the test action was commenced in the Supreme Court of Hongkong. On the Statement of Claim being filed, we, on behalf of our clients, in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure of the Colony of Hongkong, applied to His Excellency the Governor of Hongkong for his fiat to the continuance of the proceedings, and we continually from time to time pressed for the granting of the fiat without avail.\n\nIn June 1921, the Hongkong Government formally notified us on behalf of our clients that the Government of Hongkong proposed to pass an Ordinance making legal the Government's control procedure and confining our clients' compensation to the monies they had already...\n\n-5-\n\nI", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-476 - Acting Governor Claud Severn & Governor Sir Stubbs - 1922 [8-12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 492863, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-476 - Acting Governor Claud Severn & Governor Sir Stubbs - 1922 [8-12]", "page_number": 216, "title": "CO129-476 - Acting Governor Claud Severn & Governor Sir Stubbs - 1922 [8-12]", "content_text": "212\n\ncut the nature of our cliente claim,\n\nThe Government have in hand today as representing the aforesaid earnings $2,231,204.11, and the shipowners concerned consider that this sum should be returned to them now that it is not wanted for war purposes and is not required by the Home Government for war purposes.\n\nWe would point out that at the very earliest opportunity and as far back as 1918 we on behalf of the shipowners concerned wrote to the Hongkong Government and pointed out that the Government's action was without legal authority, that there were certain forms of legal procedure which the Government could adopt for the purpose of carrying out their policy, but the Government failed to adopt such courses. The courses which the Government could have adopted are set out in our letter of the 19th April 1918 set out in paragraph 3 of the printed Petition. Notwithstanding the warnings as to the legal position the Government of Hongkong took no steps to place their action on a legal basis. On the 5th December 1919 the test action was commenced in the Supreme Court of Hongkong. On the Statement of Claim being filed we on behalf of our clients in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure of the Colony of Hongkong applied to His Excellency the Governor of Hongkong for his fiat\n\nto the continuance of the proceedings, and we continually from time to time pressed for the granting of the fiat without avail. In June 1921 the Hongkong Government formally notified us on behalf of\n\n-6-", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-476 - Acting Governor Claud Severn & Governor Sir Stubbs - 1922 [8-12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 492875, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-476 - Acting Governor Claud Severn & Governor Sir Stubbs - 1922 [8-12]", "page_number": 228, "title": "CO129-476 - Acting Governor Claud Severn & Governor Sir Stubbs - 1922 [8-12]", "content_text": "296\n\nTHE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, AUGUST 4, 1922.\n\nOrdinance\n\nNo. 3 of 1921.\n\nbeen instituted before the commencement of this Ordinance, it shall be discharged and made void, subject to such order as to costs as the court or a judge thereof may think fit to make;\n\nProvided that nothing in this section shall prevent the institution or prosecution of any proceedings by or on behalf of His Majesty or the Government of the Colony of Hongkong or any Government department:\n\nProvided also that except in cases where a claim for payment or compensation can be brought under section 4 of this Ordinance, nothing in this section shall prevent—\n\n(a) the institution or prosecution of proceedings in respect of any rights under, or alleged breaches of, contract, if the proceedings are instituted within one year from the termination of the war or the date when the cause of action arose, whichever may be the later;\n\n(b) the institution or prosecution of civil proceedings founded on negligence in respect of damage to person or property elsewhere than in a foreign country;\n\n(c) the institution or prosecution of civil proceedings in respect of damage to person or property in any foreign country, or of the requisitioning of property in any foreign country, if the consent of the Attorney-General to the institution or prosecution of the proceedings is obtained, but such consent shall not be given if the person seeking to institute or prosecute the proceeding would have had no remedy if the act complained of had been done in the Colony, or if other provision has been made by treaty or convention for the settlement of claims of the class in question;\n\n(d) the institution or prosecution of proceedings respecting the validity or infringement of a patent.\n\n(2.) For the purposes of this section, an action against the Government which can be brought under the provisions of Chapter XVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure shall be deemed to be a legal proceeding, and the proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted at the date on which the statement of claim is filed.\n\n(3.) For the purposes of this section, a certificate by the Colonial Secretary that any act, matter, or thing was done under the authority of a person so holding office or so employed as aforesaid, or was done in the execution of a duty, or for the defence of the realm, or for the public safety, or for the defence of the Colony, or for the enforcement of discipline, or otherwise in the public interest, or that any sum of money was acquired by the Government of the Colony of Hongkong in consequence of any such act, matter, or thing, shall be sufficient evidence of such authority or duty or object, and of such act, matter, or thing having been done thereunder, or in execution thereof, or with such object, or that such sum of money was acquired by the said Government in consequence of such act, matter, or thing, and any such act, matter, or thing shall be deemed to have been done in good faith unless the contrary is proved.\n\n(4) Nothing in this section shall prejudice or prevent the institution or prosecution of proceedings for giving effect to a final judgment given before the passing of this Ordinance by any court of final resort or by any other court where the judgment at the passing of this Ordinance is not then the subject of a pending appeal.\n\nTHE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, AUGUST 4, 1922.\n\n4. Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing section restricting the right of taking or prosecuting legal proceedings, any person not being the subject of a state which has been at war with His Majesty during the war and not having been a subject of such a state whilst that state was so at war with His Majesty, and being the owner of a ship which, or any cargo space or passenger accommodation in which, has in fact been either requisitioned or controlled during the war by or for the Government of the Colony of Hongkong, whether on behalf of His Majesty's Government or not, shall be entitled to payment in respect of such requisition or control, and to compensation for loss or damage to such ship which was directly due to war risk, in accordance with the following provisions of this section, but not further or otherwise:\n\n(1.) Payment in respect of such requisition or control shall be made in accordance with the rates and conditions contained in the Blue Book Reports, together with any additional payment which shall have been expressly promised in writing, or credited to the owner, by or on behalf of the Government of the Colony of Hongkong.\n\n(2.) Compensation shall also be paid in respect of any ship so requisitioned or controlled for any loss or damage directly due to war risk during the period of requisition or control, and such compensation shall be calculated on the ascertained value of the ship, if she shall have been totally lost, at the time of such loss, or if she shall have been injured, on the ascertained value of such injury, and shall be assessed without taking into account any increase of market values of tonnage due to the war.\n\n(3.) Any such payment or compensation shall be assessed by the tribunal hereinafter mentioned.\n\n5.—(1.) The tribunal for assessing any payment or compensation claimed under this Ordinance shall be appointed by the Governor by notification in the Gazette, and shall consist of three members and shall be constituted in the manner following:\n\n(a) The president of the tribunal shall be such judge as the judges may mutually arrange;\n\n(b) Of the two other members of the tribunal, one shall be nominated by the Governor, and the other by the claimant, provided that if such claimant fails to nominate a member, it shall be lawful for the Governor to appoint a second member on his behalf.\n\n(2) Nothing in this Ordinance shall confer on any person a right to payment or compensation unless notice of the claim shall have been given to the Registrar of the Supreme Court within one year from the termination of the war, or the date when the transaction giving rise to the claim took place, whichever may be the later.\n\n(3) It shall be lawful for the Chief Justice to make rules of procedure for the tribunals to be constituted under this section, whether any such tribunal shall have been constituted or not, provided always that, in the absence of any such rules, the procedure to be followed before any such tribunal shall be decided by the president of that tribunal.\n\n(4.) Any tribunal when constituted under this section shall have all such powers as are vested in the Supreme Court or in a judge on the occasion of any action in respect of the following matters:\n\n224\n\n207", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-476 - Acting Governor Claud Severn & Governor Sir Stubbs - 1922 [8-12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 495758, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-481 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1923 [8-12]", "page_number": 424, "title": "CO129-481 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1923 [8-12]", "content_text": "No 352.\n\nMy Lord Duke,\n\n60896\n\n17 DEC 23\n\n417\n\nGOVERNMENT HOUSE.\n\nHONGKONG. 13th November, 1923.\n\n!\n\nEnclosure 1.\n\nEnclosure 2.\n\nI have the honour to inform Your Grace that an action has been commenced against this Government by Pong Wei Ting, Mui Wai Tong and Ko Ho Ning in respect of the resumption of certain land in the New Territories.\n\nUnder Section 480 of the Code of Civil Procedure Ordinance No.3 of 1901 the statement of claim has been transmitted to me for consideration of the grant of consent to the continuance of the action.\n\nI enclose a copy of the Statement of Claim together with a minute by the Attorney General and I should be glad if the matter could be referred for the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown.\n\nI have the honour to be,\n\nMy Lord Duke,\n\nYour Grace's most obedient humble servant,\n\n7.2. Stutt\n\nGovernor, &c.\n\nTHE RIGHT HONOURABLE\n\nTHE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE, K.G.,\n\n&c..\n\n&c..\n\n&c..", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-481 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1923 [8-12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 500305, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-489 - Governor Sir Stubbs & Sir Clementi - 1925 [8-12]", "page_number": 16, "title": "CO129-489 - Governor Sir Stubbs & Sir Clementi - 1925 [8-12]", "content_text": "## (3) That by virtue of the provisions of s.4 of the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1864, these two Ordinances are perfectly valid and in full operation even though, which is expressly denied, these Ordinances are inconsistent with obligations imposed on His Majesty by Treaty.\n\nAs no objection can be made to the regularity of the procedure adopted to resume the parcels of land in question in this case, if the Ordinances under which such action purports to have been taken are valid and of full force, an order was made on the 28th July, 1894, under s.174 of the Code of Civil Procedure, directing that the question as to the validity of these Ordinances should be set down for hearing forthwith, and that, pending such hearing, all further proceedings be stayed.\n\nPerhaps I should also mention that the Defendant raised a further plea that any obligations assumed by His Majesty in any treaty or convention entered into with a foreign state are beyond the domain of municipal law, and were not enforceable in this Court, but Mr. Jenkin on behalf of the Plaintiffs said that he did not intend to argue this point and confined himself exclusively to the validity of the two Ordinances in view of their not containing suspending clauses.\n\nShortly put, the contention for the Plaintiffs was that the authority of the Legislature of Hongkong was to be deduced from the Commission of the Governor, the Letters Patent and the Royal Instructions; and that the failure to conform to the requirements of Article XIII of the Royal Instructions invalidated Ordinances No.10 of 1900 and No.34 of 1910. He argued that s.4 of the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, did not cure the defect due to the absence of a suspending clause inasmuch as the references to instructions in that section were to instructions of a special character and not to directions such as are given in Article XIII.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-489 - Governor Sir Stubbs & Sir Clementi - 1925 [8-12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 500308, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-489 - Governor Sir Stubbs & Sir Clementi - 1925 [8-12]", "page_number": 19, "title": "CO129-489 - Governor Sir Stubbs & Sir Clementi - 1925 [8-12]", "content_text": "# [Unclear header or text]\n\nAct, 1865, to include the Royal Instructions, then he may have to answer to the Sovereign for his neglect; but the section appears to me specifically to provide that failure on the part of the Governor is not to affect the validity of any law otherwise properly passed by the **Legislative Council** and assented to by the Governor.\n\nIt is not material to my decision in this case, in view of the construction I have placed on s.4 of the **Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865**, but it may be well to add that notice of the Crown not exercising its power of disallowance was given as regards **Ordinance No.10 of 1900** on p.395 of the **Hongkong Government Gazette** of the 23rd February, 1901, and as regards **Ordinance No.34 of 1910** on p.235 of the **Gazette** of 2nd June, 1911. Assuming therefore, that the Governor was wrong in assenting to these laws without a suspending clause, the Crown which issued the instructions in this respect has not taken any exception to the incorrect action of the Governor, supposing it to have been incorrect, and it might well be argued that any defect in these laws has been cured by the subsequent express notification of their non-disallowance by the Crown. In this connection it may be interesting to note what is said at pp.434 and 435 of the judgment of the **Privy Council** in `Inglis v. de Barnard` 3 Moore's P.C. Cases p.425.\n\nIn my opinion the contention on behalf of the Crown is correct, and the validity of **Ordinances Nos.10 of 1900** and **34 of 1910** cannot be impugned on the grounds put forward on behalf of the Plaintiffs in this case. As my decision on the point of law with which I have dealt disposes of the whole cause of action in this case. I therefore order the dismissal of the action under the powers conferred on the Court by s.175 of the **Code of Civil Procedure**. The Crown should have the costs of these proceedings.\n\nStay granted for one month on application of Plaintiffs.\n\n9th January, 1925.\n\n($2.) **H. C. Gollan, Chief Justice**", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-489 - Governor Sir Stubbs & Sir Clementi - 1925 [8-12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 510170, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-503-5 Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank Ordinance- 1927 3-12-1926 - 31-12-1927", "page_number": 49, "title": "CO129-503-5 Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank Ordinance- 1927 3-12-1926 - 31-12-1927", "content_text": "# \n58 \n## Publication of yearly statements. \n### Furnishing of returns to the Governor. \n### Notices to shareholders \n\n30 \n## Yearly Statements \n153. The Board, from time to time, as soon as can be after the expiration of every year ending the 31st day of December, shall make a general statement in writing, showing therein the amount of the then debts, liabilities, and engagements and of the assets, property, credits and securities of or belonging to the Bank, as well in Hongkong as elsewhere, and such statement shall include an account of the amount of the promissory notes of the Bank in circulation, and of the coin held in the several establishments of the Bank, such accounts of promissory notes and coin respectively being made from and according to the then last returns and information furnished to the Directors from the establishments of the Bank; and the Board shall send one copy of every such general yearly statement authenticated by the signatures of the Chairman of the Board, or of two Directors, and of the Chief Manager or Chief Accountant in Hongkong, to the Governor and shall immediately afterwards publish such statement in the Gazette and in such other newspapers circulating in the places where the business of the Board shall be carried on as the Governor may, from time to time, require; and shall also make and publish and cause to be made and published by the officers, servants and agents of the Bank, at the several establishments of the Bank, such further returns as to the amount of the promissory notes of the Bank in circulation at such establishments respectively, and the amount of coin and bullion held in such establishments respectively, as the Governor shall, from time to time, require; such returns to be made to such persons, and published in such manner as the Treasury shall direct, and the Board shall obey and cause to be obeyed by the officers, servants, and agents of the Bank at the several establishments of the Bank, all such rules as the Governor shall, from time to time, make for the verification of such returns and the inspection of the coin and bullion held in the establishments of the Bank by such person and in such manner as the Governor shall think fit. \n\n154. The Board shall also, if and whenever so required by the Governor, produce and submit to him or to such persons as he shall appoint for that purpose for his or their inspection and examinations, the several returns from which such general yearly statement is prepared, and such further information as to the state and proceedings of the establishments of the Bank as the Governor shall, from time to time, require to be furnished. \n\n## Notice \n155.--(1) Any notice to be given by the Bank to shareholders either be given by generally or individually shall be sufficiently given by advertisement once at least in one or more daily newspapers printed and circulating in the Colony. \n### advertise-ment. \n### Proof of such notice. \n(2) The production in any Court of Justice of any such newspaper containing any such advertisement shall be sufficient proof of the giving of any such notice as regards all persons and for every purpose. \n\n156. Notices to be given on the part of shareholders to the Bank shall be left at or sent through the post to the Chief Manager and addressed to the Head Office. \n### Notices by shareholders to bank. \n\n157. Every person who by operation of law, transfer, transmission, or other means whatsoever, shall become entitled to any share, shall be bound by every notice in respect of such share which, previously to his name and address being entered upon the shareholders' register shall have been duly given to the party from whom he derives his title to such share. \n### Transferee bound by notice. \n\n158. The signature to any notice to be given by the Bank may be in writing or printed or lithographed or stamped. \n### How notice to be signed. \n\n159. Where a given number of days' notice, or notice extending over any other period, is required to be given, the date on which the advertisement first appears shall be counted in such number of days or other period. \n### How time to be counted. \n\n31 \n## Shareholders not entitled to certain information. \n160. No shareholder shall be entitled to require discovery of or any information respecting any detail of the Bank's trading or banking business or any matter which is or may be a business secret or which may relate to the conduct of the business of the Bank if in the opinion of the Board it will be inexpedient in the general interests of the shareholders to give the information required. \n\n## Indemnity. Individual Responsibility. \n### Shareholder not to be entitled to certain confidential information. \n161. Every Member of the Board, or of any Committee thereof, Member of directors, of any Local Committee, Chief Manager, Inspector, Manager, Sub-Manager, Agent, Sub-Agent, Chief Accountant, Accountant, or other European officer of the Bank, his heirs, executors and administrators shall be indemnified and saved harmless out of the funds of the Bank from and against all costs, charges, losses, damages, and expenses whatsoever, which any such person as aforesaid may incur or become liable to by reason of any contract entered into, or act or thing done by him in the proper execution of his own respective powers, duties, office and trust; and every such person as aforesaid his heirs, executors and administrators shall be indemnified and saved harmless out of the funds of the Bank from and against all actions suits claims and demands whatsoever brought or made against him or them in respect of any engagement or any liability of the Bank, except such as may be incurred or occasioned by or through his own dishonesty or negligence. \n\nNo such person as aforesaid shall be answerable for the acts, receipts, neglects, or defaults of the other or others of them, or for joining in any receipt or other act for conformity, or for any person with or to whom any moneys or effects belonging to the Bank shall be lodged or deposited for safe custody or shall come, or for any loss or expense happening to the Bank through the insufficiency or deficiency of title to any property acquired by order of the Board for or on behalf of the Bank, or for the insufficiency or deficiency of, or for any defect of title of the Bank to any security in or upon which any of the moneys of the Bank shall be invested, or for loss, or damage arising from the bankruptcy, insolvency or tortious act of any person with whom any moneys, securities, or effects of the Bank shall be deposited or for any loss or damage occasioned by any error of judgment, omission, default or oversight on his part, or for any other loss damage or misfortune whatever which shall happen in the execution of the duties of his office, or in relation thereto, unless the same happen through his own dishonesty or negligence. \n\n## Arbitration. \n### any \n162. Whenever any difference shall arise between the Bank on the one hand, and any of the Shareholders, their heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns, on the other hand, touching the true intent or construction of the Ordinance or of these regulations, or touching any act or thing to be done, omitted, or suffered, in pursuance of the Ordinance or these regulations, every such difference shall be referred to the arbitration of two arbitrators one to be appointed by each party and such arbitration shall be carried out in Hongkong under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure of Hongkong in the same way as if the Bank and any such shareholder had entered into a written agreement to submit any such difference to arbitration. \n### Individual responsibility. \n### Arbitrators between the bank and shareholder or successors. \n\n## Dissolution. \n### up \n163. If and when it shall appear upon or be certified by any report of the auditors or any report of the Board that one-half of the Capital actually paid on shares has been lost in the course of business or otherwise, then and in any such case the Bank shall thereupon be ipso facto dissolved. \n### Dissolution on loss of paid-up capital.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-503-5 Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank Ordinance- 1927 3-12-1926 - 31-12-1927.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 510185, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-503-5 Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank Ordinance- 1927 3-12-1926 - 31-12-1927", "page_number": 64, "title": "CO129-503-5 Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank Ordinance- 1927 3-12-1926 - 31-12-1927", "content_text": "# AUDIT. (Continued)\n\n| Paragraph | Regulations. Articles of Existing Deed of Settlement. | Remarks. |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| 147 (1) | 10 | Taken from Sec. 112 of the Companies Act, 1908 with an addition to 147 (1) which is taken from Article 169. |\n| 148 | | Taken from Sec. 113 of the Companies Act, 1908. |\n| 149 | | Desired by Bank. |\n| 150 | | do. |\n| 151 | Article 170, with the addition of words required by Bank for removal of Auditor by the Board, subject to approval of the Governor. | |\n| 152 | | Required by Bank. |\n| 153 | Article 174. | |\n| 154 | Article 175. | |\n| 155 | | The Bank prefers, for convenience of proof, to make advertisement a sufficient test of notice. See note to Regs. 25-27. |\n| 156 | | Desired by Bank. |\n| 157 | | do. |\n| 158 | | do. |\n| 159 | | do. |\n| 160 | | do. |\n| 161 | | do. |\n| 162 | 11 | Arbitration. Article 184 in different language so as to bring in the arbitration clauses of the Hongkong Code of Civil Procedure. |\n| 163-166 | Articles 205-208. | Dissolution. |\n| 167 | | Jurisdiction. |\n| 168 | | Authentication of Document or Proceeding. Desired by Bank. |\n| 169 | | Yearly Statements. Usual Precedent. |\n\n## Appendix \n| | | \n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Appendix 1. | | Form in use. |\n| Appendix 2. | | Usual practice. (See note below.) |\n| Appendix 3. | | do. |\n\nIn regard to Appendix 2 it may be pointed out that Reg. 53 substitutes a transfer in writing for the present form of transfer by Deed. The reason for making the change is that \"a deed executed in blank is inoperative as a legal transfer\" (See Palmer page 669, citing Hibblethwite V M'Morine 6 M and W 200, and Powell V London and Provincial Bank 1893, 2 Ch. 555.)\n\nPage 77", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-503-5 Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank Ordinance- 1927 3-12-1926 - 31-12-1927.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 518320, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-515-1 Piracy- legal proceedings arising from sinking of S.S. 'IRENE' 18-1-1929 - 6-9-1929", "page_number": 103, "title": "CO129-515-1 Piracy- legal proceedings arising from sinking of S.S. 'IRENE' 18-1-1929 - 6-9-1929", "content_text": "# IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONGKONG\n\n## ORIGINAL JURISDICTION\n\n### WRIT OF SUMMONS\n\nIssued the 7th day of March 1928.\n\nIndorsed the 8th day of March 1928.\n\n**The China Merchants Steam Navigation Co., Owners of the S.S. \"Irene\"** \nPlaintiff, \n**v.** \n**F. J. C. Halehan, Commanding H.M.'s Submarine L.4** \nDefendant.\n\n(The Code of Civil Procedure, Section 7.)\n\nNOTE. This writ is to be served within twelve calendar months from the date hereof, or, if renewed, within six calendar months from the date of the last renewal, including the day of such date, and not afterwards.\n\nThe defendant may appear hereto by entering an appearance, either personally or by solicitor, at the Registry of the Supreme Court in Victoria, Hongkong.\n\nLEE & RUSS \nPlaintiff's Solicitor, \n6, Des Voeux Road Central, \nHONGKONG.\n\nI, F.J.U. Halanan, personally served this writ on the Defendant, Commanding H.M.'s Submarine L.4, by handing to him a true copy of the Writ of Summons herein on Wednesday, the 28th day of March 1928, at No. 6, Des Voeux Road Central (3rd floor) Victoria in the Colony of Hongkong.\n\n## MEMORANDUM OF THE DATE OF SERVICE\n\nAction No. 67 of 1928.\n\nThis writ was served by me on the Defendant on Wednesday, the 28th day of March 1928, at No. 6, Des Voeux Road Central (3rd floor) Victoria in the Colony of Hongkong.\n\nF.J.U. Halanan\n\nPage 101 \nPage 67", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-515-1 Piracy- legal proceedings arising from sinking of S.S. 'IRENE' 18-1-1929 - 6-9-1929.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 518734, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-515-8 Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation- amendment ordinances- and reports 26-1-1929 - 8-7-1929", "page_number": 53, "title": "CO129-515-8 Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation- amendment ordinances- and reports 26-1-1929 - 8-7-1929", "content_text": "# ALPHABETICAL INDEX TO ORDINANCE & REGULATIONS\n(N.B. R. Stands for Regulation and Ord. for Ordinance.)\n\n## Accounts\n(See also Audit and Yearly Statements)\n\n* Accounts to be paid before shareholders at Annual General Meeting: R. 144\n* Annual General Meeting, Accounts at: R. 144 (R. 141, 144)\n* Auditor's Report: R. 142\n* Balance sheets: R. 140, 141 & 142\n* Finally settled, when deemed: R. 152\n* Governor to receive Accounts: R. 143, also 154\n* Inspection by shareholders: R. 142\n* Particulars to be entered in: R. 139 & 148 (2)\n* Profit and Loss Account: R. 140 to 142\n* Report of Board, attached to balance sheet: R. 145\n\n## Authentication of Document or Proceeding\n* Copy of Ordinance and Regulations: ...\n* Desired by Bank: ...\n\n## Advance by Bank on its own shares prohibited\n* R. 5\n\n## Arbitration\n* Between Bank and Shareholder: R. 162\n* Appendix 1: Form in use\n* Article 184 in different language so as to bring in the arbitration clauses of the Hongkong Code of Civil Procedure\n\n## Audit\n(See note below)\n* Accounts audited yearly: R. 146\n* Appointment of Auditors: R. 147\n* Disqualification for post of Auditor: R. 147 (4) (see also R. 149)\n* Duties of Auditors: R. 148\n* Powers of Auditors: R. 148\n* Removal of Auditor: R. 147 (7)\n* Remuneration of Auditors: (R. 141, 144 & 148 (2))\n* Report of Auditor: R. 151\n* Resignation of Auditor: (R. 147 (1) & 147 (6))\n* Vacancy, filling of: R. 151\n\nIn regard to Appendix 2 it may be pointed out that Reg. 53 substitutes a transfer in writing for the present form of transfer by Deed. The reason for making the change is that \"a deed executed in blank is inoperative as a legal transfer\" (See Palmer page 669, citing Hibblethwite v M'Morine 6 M and W 200, and Powell v London and Provincial Bank 1893, 2 Ch. 555.)\n\n66 Paragraph of Regulations. \n162 · 54 Articles of Existing Deed of Settlement. Remarks. \nArbitration. \nDissolution. \n163-166 Articles 205-208. \n167 \n168 \n169 Jurisdiction.\n\n## Usual Precedent\n* Settled (see under \"finally settled\" supra)\n* Shareholders' Inspection by, of accounts: R. 142\n\nPage 67", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-515-8 Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation- amendment ordinances- and reports 26-1-1929 - 8-7-1929.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 518784, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-515-8 Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation- amendment ordinances- and reports 26-1-1929 - 8-7-1929", "page_number": 103, "title": "CO129-515-8 Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation- amendment ordinances- and reports 26-1-1929 - 8-7-1929", "content_text": "133 Paragraph of Regulations.\n\n162 Articles of Existing Deed of Settlement.\n\n52 Remarks.\n\nArbitration. Article 184 in different language so as to bring in the arbitration clauses of the Hongkong Code of Civil Procedure.\n\nDissolution. 163-166 Articles 205-208.\n\n167 \n168 \n169 Jurisdiction.\n\nAuthentication of Document or Proceeding.\n\nCopy of Ordinance and Regulations.\n\nDesired by Bank.\n\nUsual Precedent.\n\nAppendix 1. Form in use.\n\nAppendix 2. (See note below).\ndo.\n\nAppendix 3. do.\n\nIn regard to Appendix 2 it may be pointed out that Reg. 53 substitutes a transfer in writing for the present form of transfer by Deed. The reason for making the change is that \"a deed executed in blank is inoperative as a legal transfer\" (See Palmer page 669, citing Hibblethwite v M'Morine 6 M and W 200, and Powell London and Provincial Bank 1893, 2 Ch. 555.)", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-515-8 Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation- amendment ordinances- and reports 26-1-1929 - 8-7-1929.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 570715, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-585-3 Sino-Japanese conflict- shipping 17-1-1940 - 13-11-1940", "page_number": 43, "title": "CO129-585-3 Sino-Japanese conflict- shipping 17-1-1940 - 13-11-1940", "content_text": "43\n\nB\n\nIN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONGKONG COMPANIES (WINDING UP) No. 1 of 1939.\n\nAppeal No. 15 of 1939.\n\nL\n\nIN THE MATTER of the Companies Ordinance, 1932.\n\nand\n\nIN THE MATTER of the Ching Kee Steam Navigation Company, Limited.\n\nJUDGMENT\n\nI agree with the judgment which has just been delivered by the learned Puisne Judge.\n\nThe Ching Kee Steam Navigation Company, Limited, is a company incorporated under the laws of the Republic of China and having its principal place of business at Chefoo in the Province of Shantung, now occupied by the Japanese forces.\n\nThe company is carrying on business in Chefoo, Dairen, An Tung, Tientsin, New Chwang, Tsingtao and Shanghai, and its ships fly the Chinese flag. But that they do so is little more than a fiction. The ships enjoy only a limited freedom. Their movements are controlled by Japanese agents.\n\nWith that state of affairs the majority of the shareholders, who are the appellants in this case, appear to concur. But there are fifteen hundred of them, the respondents in this case, who do not concur with the action of the majority, who wish to dissociate themselves from it and the other shareholders, and who to that end have petitioned in the Chinese courts for the dissolution of the company.\n\nThe jurisdiction of inferior courts in China is derived from section 2 of Article II of the Chinese Civil Code\n\n\"Regarding the proceedings against a private juristic person or other corporate bodies capable of being made parties in a suit, the court of the district where its principal office or principal place of business is shall be of competent jurisdiction.\"\n\nBut the court to which application would ordinarily have been made, namely the Chefoo District Court, was prevented from exercising its functions by the military occupation of Chefoo by the Japanese. A special court of first instance was appointed by an order of the Supreme Court of China, under Article XXIII of the Chinese Revised Code of Civil Procedure, by which\n\n\"... the court directly higher than the court whose jurisdiction is in question shall appoint, on the application of a party to the proceedings, a court of competent jurisdiction ... when a court of competent jurisdiction is, by reasons of law or fact, prevented from exercising its power of conducting a hearing.\"\n\nThe special court ordered the dissolution of the company and from that decision the appellants in this case appealed to the Supreme Court of China, which rejected the appeal.\n\nIt", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-585-3 Sino-Japanese conflict- shipping 17-1-1940 - 13-11-1940.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 } ]