[ { "id": 219284, "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": "CO129-007 - Sir John Davis - 1844", "page_number": 133, "title": "CO129-007 - Sir John Davis - 1844", "content_text": "esse. \n\nof \n\nattendance is desirous to give in evidence. then the sand writ of subpœna shall be in the form in the schedule hereunto annexed, marked (No. 6.) \n\nExamination \n\n58. And be it further enacted and ordained, That when the testimony of any witnesses de bene witness is in danger of being lost, before the matter to which it relates can be made the subject of judicial investigation, either party desiring his testimony shall apply in term time to the Court, on motion, or in vacation,, upon affidavit, to the Chief Justice, at chambers, setting forth the particular circumstances under which the same is made, that the said witness may be forthwith examined de bene esse, or conditionally, either before the Court, or before a commissioner to be appointed by the said Court for that purpose, according as such witness resides near to, or at a distance from Victoria; and the said Court, or Chief Justice, will thereupon make such order as the justice of the case may require. \n\nAllowance of ex penses and compen- sation to witnesses. \n\nof \n\n59.-And be it further enacted and ordained. That it shall and may be lawful to and for the said Supreme Court, in all proceedings therein, whether of a civil or criminal nature, to order and allow to all persons examined as witnesses in any such proceedings, such sum or sums of money as to the said Court shall seem fit as well for defraying the reasonable expenses of such witnesses, as for affording them a reasonable compensation for their loss of time. \n\nPunishment \n\n60. And be it further enacted and ordained, That if any person served with a witnesses for non- Subprewa to attend the said Court as a witness in any suit or action therein, or upon the attendance, and of triaf of any indictment or information, shall refuse or neglect to attend the said Court persons guilty of a \n\npursuant to such Subpoena, or if any person shall be guilty of any contempt before the contempt of Court. said Court, it shall be lawful for the said Court to panish any such person in a summary way, by fine, not exceeding One hundred Dollars, or by imprisonment for any time not exceeding two calendar months: Provided, that nothing herein contained shall effect or abridge the right of any Plaintiff or Defendant to proceed against any party for not ap- pearing pursuant to his Subpoena, for the recovery of any special damage such Plaintiff or Defendant may have sustained by reason of the disobedience of any such party. \n\nPerjury. \n\nCourt may order money to be paid by instalments, \n\nExecution of Judg- mente, &c. \n\n61.-And be it further enacted and ordained, That if in any suit or action, or in any proceeding connected therewith it shall appear to the Chief Justice of the said Supreme Court, that any person examined as a witness upon oath, or, if a Quaker, on affirmation, has committed wilful and corrupt perjury, or that any person in swearing or affirming, in any affidavit or affirmation required to be made before the said Chief Justice, has been guilty of the like offence, then, and in each and every such case, it shall and may be lawful for the said Chief Justice to direct a prosecution for perjury to be forthwith instituted against any such person so falsely swearing or affirming as aforesaid, in order that he or she may be punished according to law; or, where such perjury is committed by any person examined as a witness in open Court, it shall be lawful for the said Chief Justicer, instead of directing such prosecution to be instituted as aforesaid, either to commit such witne,s, as for a contempt of the Court, to the prison of the said Court, for any time not exceeding two calendar months,or to fine such witness. in any sum not exceeding One hundred Dollars: Provided, that where any person examined as a witness, or making any statement in the nature of an affidavit, shall be of Chinese origin or extraction, the powers hereinbefore given shall be in full force and operation, although no oath shall have been administered to such witness or person making such statement as aforesaid, or, if administered, notwithstanding any irregularity or want of form in the administration thereof. \n\n62-And be it further enacted and ordained, That it shall be lawful for the said Supreme Court to order and adjudge any sum of money recovered thereiu,in any action or suit whatsoever, to be paid at such ti ne,or intervals of time,and in such portions,or instal- ments, as the circumstances of the case may render just and expedient: Provided, that the time within which any such sum of money shall be made payable, whether by instal- ments or otherwise, shall in no case, except with the consent of the Plaintiff, exceed six months from the time of making such order and adjudication as aforesaid; Provided also, that where the money so recovered shall be ordered to be paid by instalments, if the Defendant shall make default in payment of any of such instalments, the whole of the instatments then remaining unpaid shall become due, and the Plaintiff shall be at liberty to proceed for the recovery thereof, together with all costs, in the same manner as if no such order as aforesaid had been made. \n\n63.—And be it further enacted and ordained, That the party in whose favour any final judgment, decree, or sentence of the said Court, in any civil suit or action, has been pronounced or given, where, by law, or by this Ordinance, there can be no appeal to Her Majesty in Council, or where, there being such right of appeal, no petition for leave to appeal is lodged within the time appointed for so doing, may, at his own risk, and without any leave for that purpose, sue out of the office of the Registrar of the said Court one or more writs, or processes for the execution thereof: Provided that no such writ or process shall issue against the immoveable property of any person, to raise any sum of money, debt, or damages, by the sale thereof, (except where by sentence of the \n\nCourt such immoveable property may be declared to be specially liable to sale,) until any writ or process, which mas have been issued against his moveable property, shall be first returned, and the Court shall perceive thereby that the said person has not sufficient moveable property to satisfy the exigency of the said writ or process; or, if no such writ or process shall have been issued, then until upon motion to the said Court for that purpose made, it shall appear to the satisfaction of the said Court, that the person, against whose immoveable property such writ or process is desired, has no moveable property which can be taken in execution of the sentence of the said Court, or not sufficient to satisfy the same: and no writ or process of execution shall issue for the levying and raising of any costs awarded by the said Court to any party, until the same shall have been faxed by the Registrar of the said Court; and, for that purpose, the Plaintiff or Defendant, or Attorney of the party obtaining any appointment for taxation from the Registrar, shall give due notice to the opposite party of such appointment, in order that he may he present thereat and the Registrar shall, in his taxation and allowances, pursue such instructions as shall from time to time be given to him by the Court for that purpose; and either party, feeling aggrieved by his decision, may apply to the Court, on motion, specifying the Items, charges, or allowances objected to, that the said Registrar may review his taxation. \n\n&C. \n\n64.-And be it further enacted and ordained, That the judgments, decrees, and Judgments, orders of the said Chief Justice, shall be carried into execution in any district, or place, may be executed any whatsoever within the said Colony and its Dependencies, where the Defendant, his goods where within the or chattels, may be found or be met with. \n\nColony. \n\n65.--Provided always, and be it further enacted and ordained, That no writ of execution against the goods, chattels, and effects of the Defendant, shall be executed ant's goods to be Levy on defend- at any time after sunset, nor before sunrise, and if any officer or person shall execute made between sun- any such writ after sunset, or before sunrise, such officer or other person shall be rise and sunset. subject and liable to a fine of not exceeding Fifty Dollars, which shall be set by the Chief Justice of the said Court, and enforced by distress and sale of the offender's goods. \n\n66.-And be it further enacted and ordained, That all motions, or special applica- tions to the Court, shall be supported by affidavits of the facts or circumstances upon which the same are made, which affidavits shall be sworn before the Chief Justice, or a Commissioner of the said Court. \n\nMOTIONS. \n\n67.-And be it further enacted and ordained, That all memorials, petitions, and MEMORIALs &c. to special applications to the Court, shall be brought before the Court by motion, in be brought before manner appointed for motions by the Sixty sixth section of this Ordinance; and all such the Court by Motion. memorials, petitions, or applications, shall be delivered to the Registrar, at his office, the day before the same are moved in Court, and the Registrar shall make a roll thereof, and call on the same in order; and no such memorials, petitions, or applications, shall be sent to the Chief Justice of the said Court. \n\n68.-And be it further enacted and ordained, That the Governor, in his Executive Council, shall constitute and be a Court of Error and Appeal, to whom it shall be lawful for any party to appeal by writ of error, or petition, from any decision, decree, or order of the said Supreme Court, in all matters of Law and Equity, where the matter in dispute shail amount to the sum of One thousand five hundred Dollars, but not otherwise: Provided,that no such writ of error, or petition, shall be allowed after the expiration of fourteen days next after the decision,decree,or order of the said SupremeCourt shall have been pronounced, \n\n69.--And be it enacted and ordained, That any person or persons may appeal to her Majesty, her Heirs, and Successors, in Council, from any judgment, decree, order, or sentence of the said Supreme Court, or of the said Court of Error, in such manner, within such time, and under and subject to such Rules, Regulations, and Limitations, as are hereinafter mentioned, that is to say,in case any judgment, decree, order, or sentence, shall be given or pronounced for, or in respect of, any sum or unatter at issue above the amount or value of five thousand lawful current dollars of Hongkong, or in case such judgment, decree, order, or sentence,shall involve directly or indirectly, any claim, demand, or question to, or respecting property, or any civil right amounting to, or of the value of five thousand such dollars as aforesaid, (save and except where the matter in dispute shall relate to the taking or demanding of any duty payable to her Majesty, or to any fee of office, or to any other matter or thing in which the Crown has an interest, or where rights in future may be bound, or to any general right or duty, in any of which cases an appeal shall lie, notwithstanding the value of the matter or thing in dispute shall not amount to Five thousand dollars,) the person or persons feeling ag- grieved by any such judgment,decree.order, or sentence,may, within one calendar month next after the same shall have been pronounced, made, or given, apply to the said Court, by petition, for leave to appeal therefrom to her Majesty, her Heirs, and Successors, in Council; and in case such leave to appeal shall be prayed by the party or parties, who is \n\nWRIT OF ERROR \n\nAPPEAL. \n\n", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-007 - Sir John Davis - 1844.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 231940, "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": "CO129-038 - Sir Bonham - 1851 [10-12] & Public Offices - 1851 [10-12]", "page_number": 139, "title": "CO129-038 - Sir Bonham - 1851 [10-12] & Public Offices - 1851 [10-12]", "content_text": "of any limited statements hereafter. Her statement here between hardly requires interpretation viz:\n\nto for\n\nit shall\n\nban\n\nhermit\n\n& affords only\n\n✔\n\npartition\n\nA\n\ndelivery.\n\nlove\n\nflagged in the scene.\n\nacquire information further for this on\n\ndates.\n\nat the were using comment with the Parties to clean the Cluster, where interest it is to take precautions in\n\npreference & generally against the loopholes tiny bensum\n\nThe only\n\nsubject to, as\n\neffectively\n\nfree\n\nLA1\n\npracticable.\n\nthere white\n\nbe brought to bear upon the Pirate attempt\n\nthat involves\n\nacting\n\nCALLA\n\n”\n\nthe same important residential,\n\nenzone\n\ntending piracy too dangerous the depended, a\n\nto follow.\n\nthe port.\n\nthe judicial\n\nlight have\n\nSt.\n\nInt.\n\nbe co reflect of\n\nbilin & de Juan, button\n\ncopy was time their failure\n\nCall upon the God for a report. doubt\n\nJee\n\nthat\n\nany advantage could result from communicating with the China merchants in\n\nthis\n\ncountry at present.\n\nCopy\n\nPo 145\n\nIvi,\n\nPelly Pirates\n\nh8545\n\n138\n\n$7\n\n\"Fastings at Madras\n\n18 Augt. 1851\n\nI have the honor to report ligne that my latest advices from the Straits of Malacca always report a burst of piratical mischief\n\nof petty piracies having been committed at the entrance of the China Sea, the Coast of China.\n\nSeveral\n\n2.\n\ndepredations are said to have been committed in the neighbourhood where the \"Ternate\" was cruizing, about 2 months since, although nothing suspicious was observed by her.\n\n3. It appears that Boats obtaining British clearances from Singapore to fish as far north as Banka Ceylon, commit piratical acts on their returns, shewing arrived only\n\nin the usual manner.\n\nit is next to impossible to detect the Offenders, unless caught on the act or found with plundered property on\n\nJ. Parker", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-038 - Sir Bonham - 1851 [10-12] & Public Offices - 1851 [10-12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 243849, "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": "CO129-067 - Sir Bowring - 1858 [1-4]", "page_number": 185, "title": "CO129-067 - Sir Bowring - 1858 [1-4]", "content_text": "The first charge, for which this action was brought, was dismissed for the same reason; but Mr. Mitchell, who dismissed it, could not be called on either side.\n\nThe presiding officer at the Inquiry in question was acting in his capacity of Sheriff.\n\nSo to punish this offender, and to deter Chinamen in general from wearying the Magistracy with trumped-up charges like that before me - and such are frequent - I am credibly informed. I certainly did determine, as Mr. Parson's states, to put my man on trial, whatever might be the issue of the then pending Inquest of Damages. But it is not true that I committed the man - he was committed by the Sheriff upon my Application. Had a higher judicial functionary presided, my Application would have been to commit, not for trial, but summarily, for contempt, and for a term certain.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-067 - Sir Bowring - 1858 [1-4].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 263435, "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": "CO129-108 - Public Offices - 1865", "page_number": 138, "title": "CO129-108 - Public Offices - 1865", "content_text": "## XV.—FOREIGNERS\n\n## FOREIGN TRIBUNALS\n\n117. Where a foreigner desires to institute or take any suit or proceeding of a civil nature against a British subject, the Supreme or other Court, according to its jurisdiction, may entertain the same, and where any such suit or proceeding is entertained shall hear and determine it according to the provisions of this Order and of the Rules made under it applicable in the case, either by the Judge, Assistant Judge, Law Secretary, or proper Consular Officer sitting alone (or with Assessors when the case so requires), or, if (in any case where a trial with a jury may be had under this Order) all parties desire, or the Court thinks fit to direct, a trial with a jury, then, but not otherwise, by the Judge, Assistant Judge, Law Secretary, or proper Consular Officer, with a jury.\n\n118. Where it is shown to any of Her Majesty's Courts that the attendance of a British subject to give evidence, or for any other purpose connected with the administration of justice, is required in a Chinese or Japanese Court, or before a Chinese or Japanese judicial officer, or in a Court or before a judicial officer in China or Japan of any State in amity with Her Majesty, the Court may, in cases and under circumstances which would require the attendance of that British subject before one of Her Majesty's Courts in China or Japan and if it seems to the Court just and expedient so to do, make an order for the attendance of the British subject in such Court or before such judicial officer and for such purpose as aforesaid, but so that a Provincial Court shall not have power to make an order for such attendance of a British subject at any place beyond the particular jurisdiction of the Court.\n\nAny British subject, duly served with such an order and with reasonable notice of the time and place at which his attendance is required, failing to attend accordingly and not excusing his failure to the satisfaction of the Court making the order, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding 500 dollars, or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding one month, in the discretion of the Court.\n\n## XVI.—APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT\n\n## I.—IN CIVIL CASES\n\n119. Where any decision of a Provincial Court, sitting with or without Assessors, is given in a civil case in respect of a sum or matter at issue of the amount or value of 250 dollars or upwards, or determines, directly or indirectly, any claim or question respecting property of the amount or value of 250 dollars or upwards, any party aggrieved by the decision may apply to the Provincial Court for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, and shall be entitled to leave on the terms prescribed by the Rules made under this Order, and subject to any restrictions and exceptions therein contained.\n\nIn any other case the Provincial Court may, if it seems just and expedient, give leave to appeal on like terms.\n\nIn any case the Supreme Court may give leave to appeal on such terms as seem just.\n\n## II.—IN CRIMINAL CASES\n\n120. Where any person is convicted otherwise than in a summary way of a crime or offence, the Court or Officer trying the case may, if it seems fit, reserve for the consideration of the Supreme Court any question of law arising on the trial.\n\nThe Court or Officer shall then state a special case, setting out the question reserved, with the facts and circumstances on which it arose, and shall send the case to the Supreme Court.\n\n121. Where any person is convicted in a summary way of a crime or offence, and is dissatisfied with the conviction as being erroneous in point of law, the Court or Officer trying the case may, on his application in writing, and on compliance by him with any terms prescribed by the Rules made under this Order, state a special case, setting out the facts and the grounds of the conviction, for the opinion of the Supreme Court, and send it to that Court.\n\n122. Where a special case is stated, the Court or Officer stating it shall, as seems fit, either postpone judgment on the conviction, or respite execution of the judgment, and either commit the person convicted to prison, or take proper security for him to appear and receive judgment or to render himself in execution (as the case may require) at an appointed time and place.\n\n30\n\n116. The Consular Officer shall issue to every person so registered a certificate of registration under his hand and Consular seal; and the name of a wife (unless she is living apart from her husband) shall be indorsed on her husband's certificate; and the names and descriptions of females whose registration is included in that of the head of the family shall be indorsed on the certificate of the head of the family.\n\nall persons, or to vary according to the circumstances of different classes, as the Secretary of State from time to time by such order directs.\n\n31 \n\nshould be placed before section 116 to maintain the original order.\n\nHere is the corrected version:\n\n## AEL\n\n30\n\nall persons, or to vary according to the circumstances of different classes, as the Secretary of State from time to time by such order directs.\n\n116. The Consular Officer shall issue to every person so registered a certificate of registration under his hand and Consular seal; and the name of a wife (unless she is living apart from her husband) shall be indorsed on her husband's certificate; and the names and descriptions of females whose registration is included in that of the head of the family shall be indorsed on the certificate of the head of the family.\n\n## XV.—FOREIGNERS\n\n## FOREIGN TRIBUNALS\n\n117. Where a foreigner desires to institute or take any suit or proceeding of a civil nature against a British subject, the Supreme or other Court, according to its jurisdiction, may entertain the same, and where any such suit or proceeding is entertained shall hear and determine it according to the provisions of this Order and of the Rules made under it applicable in the case, either by the Judge, Assistant Judge, Law Secretary, or proper Consular Officer sitting alone (or with Assessors when the case so requires), or, if (in any case where a trial with a jury may be had under this Order) all parties desire, or the Court thinks fit to direct, a trial with a jury, then, but not otherwise, by the Judge, Assistant Judge, Law Secretary, or proper Consular Officer, with a jury.\n\n118. Where it is shown to any of Her Majesty's Courts that the attendance of a British subject to give evidence, or for any other purpose connected with the administration of justice, is required in a Chinese or Japanese Court, or before a Chinese or Japanese judicial officer, or in a Court or before a judicial officer in China or Japan of any State in amity with Her Majesty, the Court may, in cases and under circumstances which would require the attendance of that British subject before one of Her Majesty's Courts in China or Japan and if it seems to the Court just and expedient so to do, make an order for the attendance of the British subject in such Court or before such judicial officer and for such purpose as aforesaid, but so that a Provincial Court shall not have power to make an order for such attendance of a British subject at any place beyond the particular jurisdiction of the Court.\n\nAny British subject, duly served with such an order and with reasonable notice of the time and place at which his attendance is required, failing to attend accordingly and not excusing his failure to the satisfaction of the Court making the order, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding 500 dollars, or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding one month, in the discretion of the Court.\n\n31\n\n## XVI.—APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT\n\n## I.—IN CIVIL CASES\n\n119. Where any decision of a Provincial Court, sitting with or without Assessors, is given in a civil case in respect of a sum or matter at issue of the amount or value of 250 dollars or upwards, or determines, directly or indirectly, any claim or question respecting property of the amount or value of 250 dollars or upwards, any party aggrieved by the decision may apply to the Provincial Court for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, and shall be entitled to leave on the terms prescribed by the Rules made under this Order, and subject to any restrictions and exceptions therein contained.\n\nIn any other case the Provincial Court may, if it seems just and expedient, give leave to appeal on like terms.\n\nIn any case the Supreme Court may give leave to appeal on such terms as seem just.\n\n## II.—IN CRIMINAL CASES\n\n120. Where any person is convicted otherwise than in a summary way of a crime or offence, the Court or Officer trying the case may, if it seems fit, reserve for the consideration of the Supreme Court any question of law arising on the trial.\n\nThe Court or Officer shall then state a special case, setting out the question reserved, with the facts and circumstances on which it arose, and shall send the case to the Supreme Court.\n\n121. Where any person is convicted in a summary way of a crime or offence, and is dissatisfied with the conviction as being erroneous in point of law, the Court or Officer trying the case may, on his application in writing, and on compliance by him with any terms prescribed by the Rules made under this Order, state a special case, setting out the facts and the grounds of the conviction, for the opinion of the Supreme Court, and send it to that Court.\n\n122. Where a special case is stated, the Court or Officer stating it shall, as seems fit, either postpone judgment on the conviction, or respite execution of the judgment, and either commit the person convicted to prison, or take proper security for him to appear and receive judgment or to render himself in execution (as the case may require) at an appointed time and place.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-108 - Public Offices - 1865.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 263821, "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": "CO129-109 - Public Offices - 1865", "page_number": 95, "title": "CO129-109 - Public Offices - 1865", "content_text": "# XV-FOREIGNERS\n\n## FOREIGN TRIBUNALS\n\n117. Where a foreigner desires to institute or take any suit or proceeding of a civil nature against a British subject, the Supreme or other Court, according to its jurisdiction, may entertain the same, and where any such suit or proceeding is entertained shall hear and determine it according to the provisions of this Order and of the Rules made under it applicable in the case, either by the Judge, Assistant Judge, Law Secretary, or proper Consular Officer sitting alone (or with Assessors when the case so requires), or, if (in any case where a trial with a jury may be had under this Order) all parties desire, or the Court thinks fit to direct, a trial with a jury, then, but not otherwise, by the Judge, Assistant Judge, Law Secretary, or proper Consular Officer, with a jury.\n\n## Compulsory attendance of British subjects before foreign tribunals\n\n118. Where it is shown to any of Her Majesty's Courts that the attendance of a British subject to give evidence, or for other purpose connected with the administration of justice, is required in a Chinese or Japanese Court, or before a Chinese or Japanese judicial officer, or in a Court or before a judicial officer in China or Japan of any State in amity with Her Majesty, the Court may, in cases and under circumstances which would require the attendance of that British subject before one of Her Majesty's Courts in China or Japan and if it seems to the Court just and expedient so to do, make an order for the attendance of the British subject in such Court or before such judicial officer and for such purpose as aforesaid,—but so that a Provincial Court shall not have power to make an order for such attendance of a British subject at any place beyond the particular jurisdiction of the Court.\n\nAny British subject, duly served with such an order and with reasonable notice of the time and place at which his attendance is required, failing to attend accordingly and not excusing his failure to the satisfaction of the Court making the order, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding 500 dollars, or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding one month, in the discretion of the Court.\n\n# XVI-APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT\n\n## I-IN CIVIL CASES\n\n119. Where any decision of a Provincial Court, sitting with or without Assessors, is given in a civil case in respect of a sum or matter at issue of the amount or value of 250 dollars or upwards, or determines, directly or indirectly, any claim or question respecting property of the amount or value of 250 dollars or upwards, any party aggrieved by the decision may apply to the Provincial Court for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, and shall be entitled to leave on the terms prescribed by the Rules made under this Order, and subject to any restrictions and exceptions therein contained.\n\nIn any other case the Provincial Court may, if it seems just and expedient, give leave to appeal on like terms.\n\nIn any case the Supreme Court may give leave to appeal on such terms as seem just.\n\n## II-IN CRIMINAL CASES\n\n120. Where any person is convicted otherwise than in a summary way of a crime or offence, the Court or Officer trying the case may, if it seems fit, reserve for the consideration of the Supreme Court any question of law arising on the trial.\n\nThe Court or Officer shall then state a special case, setting out the question reserved, with the facts and circumstances on which it arose, and shall send the case to the Supreme Court.\n\n121. Where any person is convicted in a summary way of a crime or offence, and is dissatisfied with the conviction as being erroneous in point of law, the Court or Officer trying the case may, on his application in writing, and on compliance by him with any terms prescribed by the Rules made under this Order, state a special case, setting out the facts and the grounds of the conviction, for the opinion of the Supreme Court, and send it to that Court.\n\n122. Where a special case is stated, the Court or Officer stating it shall, as seems fit, either postpone judgment on the conviction, or respite execution of the judgment, and either commit the person convicted to prison, or take proper security for him to appear and receive judgment or to render himself in execution (as the case may require) at an appointed time and place.\n\nPage 93", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-109 - Public Offices - 1865.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 270572, "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": "CO129-123 - Sir MacDonnell - 1867 [7]", "page_number": 460, "title": "CO129-123 - Sir MacDonnell - 1867 [7]", "content_text": "C. S. O. 6. I. O.\n\nNo. 1860–\n\n27th July, 1887.\n\nHon'ble Chief Justice Sir Charles\n\nto\n\nKanta Cecil Cowd. Finith.\n\n(Acting Colonial Secretary)\n\nRequests copies of Petitions,\n\nmade in Abm Pollard's case\n\nQuotes \"In the McDermott case\"\n\ndans trong Pet Jl. A Pollard\n\nwith enclosure\n\n33g Hong Kong 9147\n\n455\n\nLord President\n\nSepte\n\nFor F. Rogers\n\n29\n\n26\n\nhou\n\nto transmit to\n\nW. Adderley\n\nC. of State\n\nEnclosure No. 1 in Governor\n\nSir Richard Graves MacDonnell's\n\nDespatch No. 339 of 29 July\n\n1867\n\nPage 455\n\n1339-29 July\n\n3 bet br\n\nMy Lord Duke,\n\n1867\n\nI have the honor\n\nto\n\nsend to you\n\nthe copy of a despatch from the\n\nLord\n\nof\n\nHong\n\nKong forwarding an\n\n89/1789906 -69/500b jam\n\nPetition to the Queen,\n\nfrom M. B. I. Pollard, Queen's Counsel of\n\nin\n\nthe Colony appealing\n\nKata cu lain against\n\nthe\n\nof\n\nthe Chief Justice of Hongkong by which\n\nhe was\n\ndruned\n\nto pay a fine of 200\n\ndollars, & was suspended from practice for 14 days for alleged\n\ncontempt to of court maybe equine inte dr\n\nalso praying that The Judicial Commit...\n\nPage 456", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-123 - Sir MacDonnell - 1867 [7].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 278864, "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": 433, "title": "CO129-138 - Sir MacDonnell - 1869 [6-7]", "content_text": "6. Warrants of Arrest and Copies of Depositions, signed or Authentication taken before any such Judge or other competent Magistrate, as aforesaid, and \"Copies of Convictions\" shall be received on Evidence, if the Warrant of Arrest purports to be signed by such Judge or Magistrate and if the Copies of Depositions purport to be certified under the Hand of such Judge or Magistrate to be true Copies of the Original Depositions, and if the Copy of the Conviction purports to be certified under the Hand of the Judge of the Court on which the Fugitive was convicted to be a true Copy of the Original Conviction. The Signature of every such Judge or Magistrate shall be sufficiently authenticated if the Document purports to be sealed with the Official Seal of the Governor of Macao, and all Courts of Justice in this Colony shall for the Purpose of this Ordinance take Judicial Notice of such Seal, and shall admit the Documents so authenticated by it to be received in Evidence without further Proof.\n\nVI. If the Fugitive shall fail to show Cause to the Satisfaction of the Magistrate why he should not be surrendered, and if the Magistrate shall be of Opinion that there is sufficient prima facie Evidence to establish the Criminality of the Fugitive, he shall commit him to Gaol there to await the Order of the Governor; Provided always, and it is hereby expressly enacted that before any such Committal, the Magistrate shall inform the Fugitive that a Period of Fifteen Days will be allowed him to appeal to the Supreme Court if he shall think fit, under Section VII of this Ordinance, or to apply to the Court for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, and upon the hearing of the Case on Appeal or Habeas Corpus, it shall be open to the Fugitive to claim the Reversal of his Committal, and his Discharge from Custody thereunder upon the Grounds specified in Section X of this Ordinance.\n\nVII. The Provisions of Ordinance No. 4 of 1858 as to Appeals to the Supreme Court from the Decisions of the Magistrates shall, subject to the Proviso hereinafter contained, apply to Cases of Committal under this Ordinance. Provided always that upon the Application of either Party in Court or in Writing within Five clear Days after such Committal, reasonable Notice of such Application having been given to the other Party, the Magistrate shall state a Case as provided by the said Ordinance and shall transmit the same to the Registrar of the Supreme Court who shall forthwith set it down for Argument upon such Day and upon such Notice to both Parties as the Chief Justice shall direct, and no Fees or Recognizance of Appeal shall be required of the Appellant.\n\nVIII. The Magistrate at the Conclusion of the Hearing of every Case before him under this Ordinance shall forthwith send to the Governor a Report thereon and a Copy of the Committal, if any, made therein, and in Case of any Appeal or of the Issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Registrar of the Supreme Court shall give Notice thereof to the Attorney General.\n\nIX. It shall be lawful for the Governor after the Expiration of Fifteen Days from the Date of Committal or in Case of any Proceeding by Appeal or Writ of Habeas Corpus then subject to the Decision of the Supreme Court thereon, and subject also to the Provisions of Sections Ten, Eleven and Twelve hereinafter contained by Warrant under his Hand and Seal directed to the Superintendent of the Gaol and hereinafter called an \"Extradition Warrant\" to order the Fugitive so committed to be delivered to such Person or Persons as shall by Warrant under the Hand and Seal of the Governor of Macao be authorized to receive him, and such Fugitive shall be delivered up accordingly; and it shall be lawful for the Person or Persons authorized as aforesaid to hold such Fugitive in Custody, and to convey him to any Place within the Territory of Macao, and if such Fugitive shall escape out of any Custody to which he shall be committed or to which he shall be delivered as aforesaid, it shall be lawful to retake him in the same Manner as any Person accused of any Felony committed within this Colony may be retaken upon an Escape.\n\nX. No Extradition Warrant shall be granted by the Governor in any Case where in his Opinion the Requisition for the Extradition of the Fugitive has been made for political Reasons or a political Offence is involved in the Crime charged; but any Attempt against the Life of a Member of the Government of Macao shall not be deemed a political Offence.\n\nXI. No Extradition Warrant shall be granted by the Governor unless he shall have previously obtained from the Governor of Macao an undertaking that the Fugitive shall not be put on his Trial or detained within the Territory of Macao for any Crime other than that on Account of which he has been surrendered without having been previously restored or having had an Opportunity of returning to this Colony.\n\n430", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-138 - Sir MacDonnell - 1869 [6-7].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 284791, "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": "CO129-150 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1871 [5-6]", "page_number": 235, "title": "CO129-150 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1871 [5-6]", "content_text": "## \n7' \n\nין \n\n(8) \n\nwhole of them, he informed them that they must not allow themselves to be deceived by any pretence that the Contracts to which they had assented would not be enforced; that they would be bound to carry them out; nevertheless, that if any of them wished even then to draw back, they had only to say so and he would ensure that they should be allowed to return to their homes.\n\nTo this appeal, one or two only responded, who said that if possible they would wish to retract and stay behind, and they were accordingly discharged. All the rest signified their determination to adhere to their Contracts. Some of the Emigrants of the Dolores Ugarte who have been examined here as to the causes of the burning of the Ship relate this very circumstance, and all admit that they signified to the Macao Authorities their desire to emigrate.\n\nI transmit herewith two numbers (18 & 19 of 1871) of the \"Boletim da Provincia de Macao e Timor,\" in which will be found Official Reports of the Government of Macao in relation to the Case of the Nouvelle Penelope, and also of the Dolores Ugarte. I likewise transmit a copy of a Contract exactly similar to those under which the Emigrants by the Nouvelle Penelope embarked.\n\nI am informed by the French Consul that a large reward is offered by the Vice-Roy of Canton for the apprehension of KWOK-A-SING, as well as for that of the Pirate Chief, KOW-KUNG-MAHN mentioned in the Extract from the evidence of the Witness CHUN-APEw, which is given above.\n\nKWOK-A-SING, however, speaks English pretty well, and we may naturally anticipate, after the Judgment of Chief Justice SMALE, that he and his accomplices will make Hongkong the centre of their operations and that this Colony will be looked upon by them as a safe refuge from Justice, after the perpetration of similar outrages.\n\nI earnestly hope, in common with the majority of persons, that the Coolie Trade may be abolished, but that it may be abolished by legitimate means. However respectable may be the aversion of the Chief Justice to it, and however praiseworthy his motives, it is manifest that to hold out Pirates and Murderers to public commendation is to give them every encouragement to commit the very \"atrocities\" which have affixed to the Coolie Trade so unenviable a notoriety.\n\nIn conclusion, I venture to urge His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor to submit to the consideration of the Secretary of State the expediency of an immediate application to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for leave to appeal against both Judgments delivered by Chief Justice SMALE in the case of KWOK-A-SING; for those Judgments, apart from other considerations, deal with questions of grave constitutional and international importance, and unless I am greatly mistaken, establish erroneous and inconvenient Precedents in the Administration of Justice in the Colony.\n\nHongkong, 25th May, 1871.\n\n**JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE, Attorney General**\n\n## \nTo Wit\n\n### Enclosure to Attorney General's printed Report of 25th May 1871, upon the Case of Quok Asing\n\nTo The Captain Superintendent and all and each of the Constables of the Hong Kong Police Force,\n\nWhereas in pursuance of the Treaty entered into between Great Britain and France for the mutual surrender of Criminals, requisition has been made to me by Charles de La Forest, Vice Consul for France in this Colony, for the surrender of one \"Kwok A Sing...\"", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-150 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1871 [5-6].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 288856, "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": "CO129-159 - Sir Kennedy - 1872 [9-12]", "page_number": 229, "title": "CO129-159 - Sir Kennedy - 1872 [9-12]", "content_text": "227\n\nCertificate.\n\nSuits by foreigners against British subjects.\n\nCompulsory attendance of British subjects before foreign tribunals.\n\nall 30 persons, or to vary according to the circumstances of different classes, as the Secretary of State from time to time by such order directs.\n\n116. The Consular Officer shall issue to every person so registered a certificate of registration under his hand and Consular seal; and the name of a wife (unless she is living apart from her husband) shall be indorsed on her husband's certificate; and the names and descriptions of females whose registration is included in that of the head of the family shall be indorsed on the certificate of the head of the family.\n\nXV. FOREIGNERS.\n\nFOREIGN TRIBUNALS.\n\n117. Where a foreigner desires to institute or take any suit or proceeding of a civil nature against a British subject, the Supreme or other Court, according to its jurisdiction, may entertain the same, and where any such suit or proceeding is entertained shall hear and determine it according to the provisions of this Order and of the Rules made under it applicable in the case,—either by the Judge, Assistant Judge, Law Secretary, or proper Consular Officer sitting alone (or with Assessors when the case so requires),—or, if (in any case where a trial with a jury may be had under this Order) all parties desire, or the Court thinks fit to direct, a trial with a jury, then, but not otherwise, by the Judge, Assistant Judge, Law Secretary, or proper Consular Officer, with a jury.\n\n118. Where it is shown to any of Her Majesty's Courts that the attendance of a British subject to give evidence, or for any other purpose connected with the administration of justice, is required in a Chinese or Japanese Court, or before a Chinese or Japanese judicial officer, or in a Court or before a judicial officer in China or Japan of any State in amity with Her Majesty, the Court may, in cases and under circumstances which would require the attendance of that British subject before one of Her Majesty's Courts in China or Japan and if it seems to the Court just and expedient so to do, make an order for the attendance of the British subject in such Court or before such judicial officer and for such purpose as aforesaid,—but so that a Provincial Court shall not have power to make an order for such attendance of a British subject at any place beyond the particular jurisdiction of the Court.\n\nAny British subject, duly served with such an order and with reasonable notice of the time and place at which his attendance is required, failing to attend accordingly and not excusing his failure to the satisfaction of the Court making the order, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding 500 dollars, or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding one month, in the discretion of the Court.\n\n31\n\nXVI. APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT.\n\nI.—IN CIVIL CASES.\n\nto be obtained.\n\n119. Where any decision of a Provincial Court, sitting with Leave to appeal or without Assessors, is given in a civil case in respect of a sum or matter at issue of the amount or value of 250 dollars or upwards,—or determines, directly or indirectly, any claim or question respecting property of the amount or value of 250 dollars or upwards, any party aggrieved by the decision may apply to the Provincial Court for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, and shall be entitled to leave on the terms prescribed by the Rules made under this Order, and subject to any restrictions and exceptions therein contained.\n\nIn any other case the Provincial Court may, if it seems just and expedient, give leave to appeal on like terms.\n\nIn any case the Supreme Court may give leave to appeal on such terms as seem just.\n\nII.—IN CRIMINAL CASES.\n\n120. Where any person is convicted otherwise than in a summary way of a crime or offence, the Court or Officer trying the case may, if it seems fit, reserve for the consideration of the Supreme Court any question of law arising on the trial.\n\nThe Court or Officer shall then state a special case, setting out the question reserved, with the facts and circumstances on which it arose, and shall send the case to the Supreme Court.\n\nmay be reserved.\n\n121. Where any person is convicted in a summary way of a crime or offence, and is dissatisfied with the conviction as being erroneous in point of law, the Court or Officer trying the case may, on his application in writing, and on compliance by him with any terms prescribed by the Rules made under this Order, state a special case, setting out the facts and the grounds of the conviction, for the opinion of the Supreme Court, and send it to that Court.\n\n122. Where a special case is stated, the Court or Officer stating it shall, as seems fit, either postpone judgment on the conviction, or respite execution of the judgment, and either commit the person convicted to prison, or take proper security for him to appear and receive judgment or to render himself in execution (as the case may require) at an appointed time and place.\n\nto", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-159 - Sir Kennedy - 1872 [9-12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 300088, "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": "CO129-177 - Sir Kennedy Acting Governor Austin Lieut Governor Hennessy - 1877 [1-5]", "page_number": 418, "title": "CO129-177 - Sir Kennedy Acting Governor Austin Lieut Governor Hennessy - 1877 [1-5]", "content_text": "Production \n\nof Warrant of Arrest. \n\nEvidence In Case of Person accused. \n\nEvidence in Case of a Per- son convicted. \n\nProof of Identity. \n\nAuthentication \n\nof Documents. \n\nDocuments to \n\nbe read to the Fugitive who \n\nmust be asked to show Cause, \n\nCommittal, \n\nORDINANCE No. 13 of 1870. \n\nHongkong and Macao Extradition. \n\n1. There must be the Production before the Magistrate of a valid Warrant of Arrest issued by a Judge or other competent Magistrate having Authority within the Territory of Macao to take Cognizance of the Crime charged and clearly setting forth such Crime. \n\n2. In the Case of a Person accused but not convicted such Evidence shall be produced to the Magistrate as would in his Opinion justify the Apprehension of the Fugitive if the Crime of which he is accused had been committed within the Jurisdiction of this Colony, with this Qualification that Copies of Depositions signed or taken before any such Judge or other competent Magistrate as aforesaid and authenticated in Manner hereinafter provided may be received in Evidence of the Criminality of the Fugitive. \n\n3. In the Case of a Person convicted a Copy of the Conviction authenticated in Manner hereinafter provided shall be produced: But if it should appear that the Conviction was pronounced in the Absence of the Accused for Contumacy in not having surrendered to take his Trial, the same Evidence shall be produced to the Magistrate as in the Case of a Person accused but not convicted. \n\n4. In every Case Proof of the Identity of the Fugitive must be given to the Satisfaction of the Magistrate. \n\n5. Warrants of Arrest and Copies of Depositions, signed or taken before any such Judge or other competent Magistrate, as aforesaid, and Copies of Convictions shall be received in Evidence, if the Warrant of Arrest purports to be signed by such Judge or Magistrate and if the Copies of Depositions purport to be certified under the Hand of such Judge or Magistrate to be true Copies of the Original Depositions, and if the Copy of the Conviction purport to be certified under the Hand of the Judge of the Court, by which the Fugitive was convicted to be a true Copy of the Original Conviction. The Signature of every such Judge or Magistrate and his Authority to take Cognizance of the Crime or Offence charged, shall be sufficiently proved if the Document purport to be sealed with the Official Seal of the Governor of Macao, and all Courts of Justice in this Colony shall, for the Purpose of this Ordinance, take Judicial Notice of such Seal, and shall admit the Documents so authenticated by it to be received in Evidence without further Proof. \n\n6. The original Warrant of Arrest and the Copy of the Depositions or as the Case may be the Copy of the Conviction shall be read to the Fugitive, and he shall be asked if he has any valid Cause to show why he should not be committed to Gaol to await the Order of the Governor. \n\nVI. If the Fugitive shall fail to show Cause to the Satisfaction of the Magistrate why he should not be committed, and if the Magistrate shall be of Opinion that there is sufficient prima facie Evidence to establish the Criminality of the Fugitive, he shall \n\nORDINANCE No. 13 of 1870. \n\nHongkong and Macao Extradition. \n\ncommit him to Gaol there to await the Order of the Governor : Provided always, and it is hereby expressly enacted that before any such Committal, the Magistrate shall inform the Fugitive that an Appeal and Period of Fifteen Days will be allowed him to appeal to the Supreme Court if he shall think fit, under Section VII, or to apply for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. \n\nWrit of \n\nHabeas \n\nVII. Ordinance No. 4 of 1858, as to Appeals from the Decisions of Magistrates shall not apply to Proceedings under this Ordinance, but the following Rules as to Appeals shall be observed, \n\nthat is to say :——— \n\nAppeals to \n\nSupreme \n\nCourt. \n\nCommittal. \n\n1. If the Fugitive shall desire to appeal to the Supreme Court against a Magistrate's Order of Committal and shall notify such Desire to the Magistrate at any Time before the Expiration of Fifteen Days from the Date of such Order; or if the Attorney General shall desire to appeal to the Supreme Court against a Magistrate's Order of Discharge of a Fugitive and shall notify such Desire to the Magistrate at any Time before the actual Discharge of the Fugitive, the Magistrate shall, subject to the Provision in Rule 3 hereinafter contained, grant such Appeal and transmit forthwith to the Registrar of the Supreme Court, the Depositions and all other Documents relating to the Case together with any Statement in Writing which he may think fit to annex in relation thereto. \n\n2. If the Appeal shall be by the Attorney General against an Order of Discharge, such Order shall be suspended until the Conclusion of the Appeal, and the Fugitive shall be detained in Custody until further Order of the Magistrate, or of the Supreme Court. \n\n3. If the Appeal shall be by a Fugitive against an Order of Committal and the Magistrate shall have Reason to believe that the Appeal is merely frivolous, he may refuse to grant the same. \n\n4. In Case the Magistrate shall refuse to grant an Appeal to a Fugitive on the Ground that the same is frivolous, the Supreme Court may, if it shall think fit, upon the Fugitive's Petition in Writing, setting forth the Grounds of Appeal, make an Order directing the Magistrate to grant the Appeal. \n\n5. The Magistrate shall cause Notice of his Intention to discharge a Fugitive, (otherwise than in Pursuance of any Decision of the Supreme Court), and also of any Appeal by a Fugitive against his Committal, to be served upon the Crown Solicitor, and no Fugitive shall be discharged by a Magistrate, (otherwise than aforesaid), unless the Attorney General shall have had an Opportunity of being heard in Opposition thereto, and of giving Notice of Appeal. \n\n6. Every Appeal under this Ordinance may be heard in Vacation and either in Court or in Chambers and shall be \n\nPage 416", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-177 - Sir Kennedy Acting Governor Austin Lieut Governor Hennessy - 1877 [1-5].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 300154, "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": "CO129-177 - Sir Kennedy Acting Governor Austin Lieut Governor Hennessy - 1877 [1-5]", "page_number": 484, "title": "CO129-177 - Sir Kennedy Acting Governor Austin Lieut Governor Hennessy - 1877 [1-5]", "content_text": "482\n\nIn the case of Foreign Countries the Government of those Countries\n\nI of those countries applie\n\nFor\n\nExtradition, and I think the same rule ought to apply to the Colonies, Except perhaps to those which come under part 2 of the Bill.\n\nI would therefore suggest that\n\nthe warrant should be countersigned\n\nor other\n\nin the Colony from which it issues by the Colonial secretary or principal Executive officer deputed for the purpose in the Colony or part from which the application is made.\n\nAnd that in Cases where an\n\nOfficer other than the Colonial secretary is deputed for the purpose that the Government giving a deputation\n\nshould undertake to be bound by the\n\nacts of the party deputed and should\n\ngive notice to all other Governments\n\nof the name or title of office of the party deputed, of which notice when published in the Gazette of the Colony\n\nnotified all Courts in that Colony shall be bound to take judicial notice.\n\nA\n\ngreat advantage also resulting from this course being adopted would be, that the responsibility would be thrown on the official in the Colony endorsing the warrant, of seeing that the necessary proof accompanied the warrant, in order to justify the Magistrate before whom the alleged Offender is brought to commit.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-177 - Sir Kennedy Acting Governor Austin Lieut Governor Hennessy - 1877 [1-5].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 304065, "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": "CO129-185 - Acting Governor Marsh Governor Hennessy - 1879 [6-12]", "page_number": 10, "title": "CO129-185 - Acting Governor Marsh Governor Hennessy - 1879 [6-12]", "content_text": "# Flis Honor said there was a rule so laid down by Hayles, and he could not say anything against that authority now as he had only an hour or so quoted his opinion on another subject and praised his judicial wisdom. But was the learned Counsel aware that Russell on Crimes held quite differently. To take an instance, would the learned Counsel contend that if one man blew another up with gunpowder, blowing the body into fragments, that no charge would be for murder because the dead body could not be found? He hoped not.\n\nMr Russell, to clear away the error the learned Counsel for the defence seemed to have fallen into, read Russell on Crimes on this subject. That eminent authority remarked that Mr Justice Hayles' remarks were to be taken, and were no doubt intended, as a caution and not as a rule. He had proved in this case that the Captain and the officers were dead before they were thrown overboard. He had laid testimony before them as to the existence and disposition of the dead bodies. With regard to the Chinese boy, he did not claim that his death had been caused by any blow struck at him by either of the prisoners or by anyone else. But it was proved that it was because of the threats of John that he jumped into the water and was drowned. He quoted a case in which Justices Heath, Gibbs, and Bailey had held that where a woman, in bodily fear of violence from her husband, which she had reason to believe would cause her death, jumped from a window and killed herself, the husband was found guilty of murder. The Court ruled that if the death was partly due to his violence and partly due to her fall, he was equally liable for murder.\n\nMr Russell was about to proceed, when His Honor said, the Court would have to adjourn; they could not finish tonight. The Acting Attorney General said he understood the jurors desired to go on. (The jury concurred.) He would not take more than a quarter of an hour.\n\nThe Court consented to go on.\n\nThe Attorney General went over the different counts again, to impress them on the minds of the jury. With regard to the first count, it had been plainly proved that the Captain was murdered; the question was who did it? Were the prisoners jointly engaged in that murder? Did any one of them commit it? They had heard evidence of the conversation in the forecastle, the reference to iron bars being made ready; they had heard of the sudden rush on deck at night, the slamming of doors, the directions given by John and Hannan to call the crew up, of their going to the Captain's cabin, and of their announcing **\"It is finished,\" (\"Suddah\")** when they came out. They had heard of the first and second prisoners coming out from the Chief mate's quarters, pursuing him after having beaten him in his bunk. When asked a short time afterwards \"where is the chief mate?\" they gave the same answer \"Buddah.\" What construction was the jury to put upon all this? He contended that the conversation in the forecastle clearly enough proved that these men premeditated the murder of the Captain. Smoking their opium pipes there, they planned a conspiracy to murder him, and to seize the ship. The sudden rush on deck at night, the slamming of doors, the rush to the Captain's cabin, and the subsequent finding of the dead bodies proved all this. Then, calling the crew, they seemed to have gone in for a feast, a sort of carnival; they had coffee as the Captain used to have it in the saloon, they broke open and ransacked his drawers, &c.; they took possession of what property they chose, they armed themselves and dressed themselves in his clothes, broke open his cash-box and abstracted the dollars.\n\nThese three men, acting as the principal leaders in these acts, after the violent death of the Captain, strengthened the presumption that they were the ringleaders in the crime which led to his death. They took command of the ship, directing her to be sailed to Palawan. There was no question, whatever, he contended, that they took these men who were with them on shore on the uninhabited island for the purpose of murdering them; the talk about getting wood and water was a mere pretence. Telling them to put down their buckets and pick up wood, an opportunity was got of striking them on the back of the neck with an axe, and they were despatched. The evidence against them for murdering the carpenter was not so perfectly clear and decided as he could have wished, but they had the confession of the men conveyed by their using the same word, \"Suddah.\"\n\nHis Honor pointed out that they used the same word with regard to Peter, who was alive and well today.\n\nMr Russell: - Yes. But that was when they were coming away from this desert island and leaving him there. It was equivalent to \"he is done for;\" or \"it's all over with him.\" They had believed that, leaving him there, he was as good as dead. Fortunately for the ends of justice, he was not left to perish on that island.\n\nHis Honor: - Have you considered whether it is worth while encumbering your case with the carpenter's death at all?\n\nThe Attorney General: I will not trouble the jury further with it. There is not that strength of evidence which there is on the other counts. Here he might call their attention to the fact that whatever allegations they had to make against the Captain for ill-treatment and cruelty while under the influence of drink, allegations which they impressed upon them did not in any way excuse or justify their conduct even if true; there was not the slightest suspicion of inhumanity against either the first or second mate; indeed, one of them had taken the part of a man the Captain had beaten, and said he was sorry to see anything of the kind done. With regard to the Chinese murdered, the crime was a most dastardly one. They were perfectly harmless men; even to the scuttling of the ship, they had obeyed these men. But when the prisoners knew they were going to a country where there were no white men, and where they were likely to get into trouble if they took these Chinamen with them, they induced them to go on shore at this uninhabited island and despatched them. He directed their attention in this connection to the evidence of the witness Peter. There was every reason why they should implicitly believe this man. He was not one of the same race as the prisoners; that was one of the reasons they wanted to silence him too; he was not likely to screen them; he was an intelligent fellow, and as the jury were able to see for themselves, he spoke English extremely well; he was a British-born subject belonging to the Mauritius; he saw the Chinaman murdered and, knowing his own fate if he got into their hands, kept out of the way, and was saved by a series of fortunate circumstances, hiding himself in the jungle and being taken off, after they had gone, by a passing boat. This man, he particularly called upon them to bear in mind, had never been charged with any participation in the crimes alleged against the prisoners.\n\nAs regards the question of jurisdiction, the ship had, on the best evidence, been proved a British ship; although her papers had been lost, the duplicates of her register &c., were equally good evidence. The law, as his Lordship would instruct them, said, that wherever the flag of England was, the Admiralty had jurisdiction; if a ship sailed under the flag of England...\n\nPage 9", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-185 - Acting Governor Marsh Governor Hennessy - 1879 [6-12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 306621, "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": "CO129-189 - Governor Hennessy - 1880 [7-9]", "page_number": 377, "title": "CO129-189 - Governor Hennessy - 1880 [7-9]", "content_text": "Postmaster General, \n\nRegistrar General, Judicial, \n\nEcclesiastical, \n\nEducational, \n\nMedical, \n\nPolice Magistrates, \n\n- \n\nBrought forward, \n\n$114,296 \n\nSERVICES EXCLUSIVE OF ESTABLISHMENTS. \n\nColonial Secretary, \n\n540 \n\nColonial Treasurer, \n\n1,500 \n\nSurveyor General, \n\n1,800 \n\n57,900 \n\n25 \n\n500 \n\n500 \n\n9,756 \n\n11,440 \n\n390 \n\n33,009 \n\n20,520 \n\n6,294 \n\n4,000 \n\nTransport, \n\n4,500 \n\nWorks and Buildings, \n\n78,800 \n\nRoads, Streets, and Bridges, \n\n40,520 \n\nLighthouses, \n\n8,000 \n\nGovernment Gardens and Plantations, \n\n12,000 \n\nMiscellaneous Services, - \n\n37,800 \n\nMilitary Contribution, \n\n106,748 \n\nGrand Total, \n\n$845,838 \n\nPolice, \n\nGnol, \n\nFire Brigade, \n\nCharitable Allowances, \n\nPassed the Legislative Council of Hongkong, this 10th day of September, 1880. \n\nActing Clerk of Councils. \n\nThe Daily Press. \n\nHONGKONG, August 13TH, 1880. \n\nLEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. \n\nA Meeting of the Legislative Council was held \n\nThere were present:- \n\nyesterday afternoon. \n\nHis EXCELLENCY the GOVERNOR. Hon. Sir JOHN SMALE, Chief Justice. Hon. F. STEWART, Acting Colonial Secretary. Hon. E. L. O'MALLEY, Attorney-General. Hon. M. S. TONNOCHY, Acting Colonial \n\nTreasurer. \n\nHon. P. KYRIE. \n\nHon. W. KESWICK, Hon. J. M. PRICE. Hon. N. CROY. \n\nPRISON DISCIPLINE. \n\nmore \n\nHis EXCELLENCY said-Gentlemen, our business to-day consists of considering the first reading of certain bills. I propose to ask my hon. friend the Attorney-General to submit to your notice certain bills which come particularly within his department, but before calling upon him I will ask your attention to a bill entitled \"An Ordinance enacted by the Governor of Hongkong, with the advice of the Legislative Council thereof to amend the Prisons Regulation Amendment Ordinance, 1880,\" which I am about to lay on the table and to ask you to read a first time. The history of this bill is simply this. You will remember that last year we passed an Ordinance to enable prisoners in gaol to be punished for breaches of prison discipline on the eve of their leaving the prison. It had been reported to me that the discipline of the prison was to some extent interfered with by the fact that prisoners a day or two before the term of their imprisonment expired would commit some offence for which they ought to receive, say, a week's solitary confinement, and we have no law to impose that punishment upon them. Accordingly, with your unanimous approval, a short Ordinance was passed to remedy that defect in the prison law of 1863. I duly transmitted that Ordinance to the Secretary of State, and Sir Michael Hicks-Beach in reply thus wrote me: \n\nDowning-street, October 3rd, 1879. SIR,I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch No. 60 of the 22nd May, forwarding for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure, Ordinance No. 2 of 1878, entitled, an Ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 4 of 1868. \n\n2.-I caused a reference to be made to the Home Office \n\nregarding the advisability of the Ordinance, and I enclose a copy of the reply. \n\n3.It will be seen that in the last paragraph of the Home Office letter, exception is taken to four points in Ordinance 4 of 1863, viz., the power given to the Superintendent to inflict sentences of imprisonment, and to order corporal punishment on his own authority: the provision respecting punishment for neglect of work, and the interval required to elapse before carrying out the sentence of corporal punishment. \n\n4.Before forming any definite conclusion upon these \n\npoints I shall be glad to receive the opinion of your Government as to how far it would be desirable to amend the law in these particulars, and a report from the Superintendent of the Gaol as to the result of his further experience of gaol management, for I observe from his evidence at page 85 of the Police Report that he was then of opinion that it was desirable that the Superintendent should have the power to administer a certain number of strokes, and I should be glad to be informed whether the results of another year's experience has been to confirm or modify that opinion--I have, &c., \n\nM. E. HICKS-BEACH. \n\nGovernor Hennessy, C.M.G., &c., \n\nThe enclosure referred to is from the Home Office, and in it the Secretary of State says--- \n\nThe Home Office to the Colonial Office. \n\nWhitehall, August 28th, 1879. SIR. Referring to your letter of the 18th instant, forwarding copy of an Ordinance of the Hongkong Government relative to punishments for offences committed in gaol, I am directed by Mr. Secretary Cross to state for the information of the Secretary of State for the Colonies that in England there is no power to detain a prisoner for a prison offence after his sentence has expired, unless he is brought up before a Magistrate in the same way as a free person would be and sentenced according to law. \n\nIn Military Prisons the visitors might, under the Military Act, detain a prisoner under certain circumstances after his sentence had expired, but it does not appear that such a power can be exercised under the Army Discipline Act. \n\nC. C \n\n16291 \n\nin so far as Magistrates acting as visitors of a prison having such a power, there appears to Mr. Cross to be no objection to the Clause, but the power of the Superintendent of the Gaol to inflict sentences of \n\nimprisonment seems to him to be objectionable. \n\nI am to add that no Governor in England has power given by the Ordinance of 1863 to the Superintendent to inflict corporal punishment, this power being properly confined to visiting justices and persons acting as such. The provisions also as to punishment for neglect at work, and that by which 12 hours after sentence must elapse before the punishment is inflicted, do not seem to Mr. Cross to be expedient.-I am, &c., \n\nA. F. O. LIDDELL. The Under-Secretary of State, Colonial Office. Well, on receipt of these dispatches I caused them to be sent round to members of the Executive Council and duly considered by my advisers, and in the meantime they were sent to the Superintendent of the Gaol, who gave a report. That report was considered at the Executive Council. The upshot of the report of my hon. friend the Superintendent of the Gaol (Mr. Tonnochy) is that he thinks the time has come when the Superintendent of the Gaol might be relieved of the task of sentencing prisoners to corporal punishment, and accordingly the Executive Council, having considered the matter, unanimously recommended me to amend the Ordinance in that particular, and at the same time they recommended that the Attorney-General should modify the Ordinance to meet the evidently expressed views of Her Majesty's Government, and it is in that way my hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General has drafted the Ordinance, the first reading of which I now proceed to move. I now move, gentlemen, that it be read a first time. At our next meeting we will have the second reading and any discussion that may arise on it. \n\nThe bill was then read a first time. \n\nTHE MERCHANT SHIPPING ORDINANCE. \n\nThe ATTORNEY-GENERAL-Your Excellency, I have to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled “An Ordinance enacted by the Governor of Hongkong, with the advice of the Legislative Council thereof, to amend the Merchant Shipping Consolidation Ordinance.\" The object of this Bill is to amend in certain particulars an Ordinance which was passed last year consolidating the whole of the laws of this colony relating to merchant shipping. The amendments are of a very trifling description, one or two of them are merely verbal. \n\nThe Bill was read a first time. \n\nTHE FRENCH MAIL STEAMERS. \n\nThe ATTORNEY-GENERAL-Your Excellency, \n\nI have to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled \"An Ordinance enacted by the Governor of Hongkong, with the advice of the Legislative Council thereof, to make temporary provision for securing the status of French mail steamers within the port of Hongkong.\" The object of this Bill is to secure for the steamers of the Messageries Maritimes the status which it was provided by the Postal Convention between Her Majesty and the Emperor of the French in 1856 and subsequently by a supplementary convention they should have. It was provided that the mail steamers employed by the French Government should occupy the status of men-of-war. The Council will remember that in order to secure for them this status it is necessary to legislate, in consequence of the judgment of the Supreme Court last year in reference to a case which arose at the time. I may explain that according to the judgment, the laws of this Colony do not as they stand secure for the steamers of the Messageries Maritimes the status it is right that they should have in accordance with the terms of the convention, and the object of this bill is to do that. \n\nThe bill was read a first time. \n\nEMIGRATION LICENCES. \n\nThe ATTORNEY-GENERAL-I have to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled the \"Emigration Amendment Ordinance, 1880.\" The object of this bill is to shorten the process that has to be gone through at present before a licence can be obtained by steamers purposing to take emigrants from the Colony. A great deal of inconvenience has been experienced under the existing system, under which it is necessary to obtain the sanction of the Governor in Council. That necessitates the circulation of papers amongst members of Council and if some of them happen to be absent at the time it delays the departure of the ship, The object of this bill is simply to place the superintending power in the Governor's hands and not to make it compulsory on him to consult the \n\n374", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-189 - Governor Hennessy - 1880 [7-9].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 318239, "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": "CO129-202 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1882 [7-9]", "page_number": 491, "title": "CO129-202 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1882 [7-9]", "content_text": "## \n484 \nbe liable to penal servitude for life or for any term not less than 3 years and to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding two years.\n\nLooking to what is said in paragraph 8 of the despatch as to the desirability of more precisely defining the offences against which Sections 4, 5, 6, 7 are directed and to the opinions expressed in paragraphs 7, 9, 10 of the despatch, I suggest the adoption of the following interpretation Clause.\n\nThe term piracy in this Ordinance shall include offences under Clauses 59, 60, 214 of the Criminal Code (Judicial Proceedings Bill) 1899.\n\nThe term piracy shall include \n(a) any felony as defined in the above Section of this Ordinance; and \n(b) any act of piracy by the law of nations committed high seas or within the Admiralty jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, \n(1) either by Chinese or others, foreigners or by subjects of the Queen; and \n(2) either within or beyond 3 miles of Chinese waters.\n\nThe term pirate shall include any person committing any piracy as above defined.\n\nThe term intending pirate shall include any person intending to commit any piracy.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-202 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1882 [7-9].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 318442, "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": "CO129-202 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1882 [7-9]", "page_number": 694, "title": "CO129-202 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1882 [7-9]", "content_text": "# SIA, (312) \n## MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE OF THE CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ORDINANCE COMMISSION.\n\n### (No. 1.)\n#### Secretary, C. D. O. Commission, to Registrar General,\n\nVICTORIA, HONGKONG, \n23rd May, 1878.\n\nI am directed by the Commission appointed to enquire into the operation of the Contagious Diseases Ordinance to send you a printed copy of the evidence upon which their report will be founded, and to call your attention to the following points which seem to require some further light being thrown upon them.\n\n1. The Commission observe that from a time almost immediately following the coming into operation of Ordinance 10 of 1867 a practice grew up of arresting the inmates of unlicensed brothels as well as the keepers, in many instances such inmates being girls so young that it would seem impossible they should have been mistaken for keepers. The Commission would be glad to learn by what authority this practice has been sanctioned, as so far as they can find, it has not received that of the Ordinance itself.\n\n2. The Commission observe from the judicial records and from other evidence laid before them that unlicensed brothels frequented by Chinese only have been subjected to frequent prosecutions, and their inmates upon conviction sentenced to undergo medical examinations. As the inmates of licensed brothels for Chinese only are not subjected to medical examinations, the Commission would be glad to know what special reason dictated the adoption of this course.\n\n3. A practice seems to have been for a long time followed of sending women for medical examination before conviction, the result of the examination having been used as evidence affecting the finding of the Court. Looking to the terms of sections 44 and 45 of the Ordinance, the Commission, as at present advised, have serious doubts as to whether this is in accordance with their meaning.\n\n4. Evidence has been laid before the Commission to the effect that women who have been fined have been compelled to sell themselves to a continuation of prostitution in order to raise money to pay their fines. The Commission would be glad to learn whether you have any reason to doubt the correctness of such testimony.\n\n5. The Commission desire to point your attention to answers 71 to 72 inclusive (CHEANG-A-LIU's evidence) and they are anxious to learn whether and if so to what extent the practice there mentioned has received the sanction of the Registrar General.\n\n6. It has suggested itself to the Commission whether the supply of women (both keepers and inmates) to brothels licensed for foreigners is not due rather to the pecuniary advantages held out or supposed to be held out by having Government licences or carrying on business in licensed brothels than to the fear of prosecution for illicit prostitution. Supposing prosecutions for keeping unlicensed houses were not enforced, do you think that the supply of inmates to licensed brothels for foreigners would be materially diminished assuming the licences granted still to carry with them the conditions of such inmates being compelled to submit to medical examinations of their persons and of being confined in the Lock Hospital when diseased?\n\nWould you be kind enough to supply the Commission with tables showing the revenue realized under Ordinance No. 10 of 1867 both from fees for licences and from fines or from any other sources since it came into operation till the end of the year 1877, if it is within your power to do so? If it is not within your power, can you kindly inform them where to apply for such tables?\n\nIn addition to the matters above specially referred to, the Commission would be glad to be favoured with any observations upon the evidence generally which you think would forward the enquiry, and they will probably best consult your wishes by asking you to put your views in writing.\n\nI have the honour to be, \nSir, \nYour most obedient Servant, \n**H. L. DENNYS**, Secretary, **Contagious Diseases Ordinance Commission**.\n\nRegistrar General, \n&c., &c., &c.\n\n### (No. 2.)\n#### Registrar General to Secretary, C. D. O. Commission.\n\nSIR, \nREGISTRAR GENERAL'S OFFICE.\n\nI have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated May, 1878, which reached me on the 24th inst.\n\n2. Regarding the practice of arresting the inmates of unlicensed brothels as well as the keepers, which the Commission considers grew up almost immediately after Ordinance 10 of 1867 came into operation, I would mention that I was under the impression that this was also done prior to that date, while Ordinance No. 12 of 1857 was in force. However that may be, the arrests have been effected under the general powers granted to any Police Constable to take into custody persons whom he shall have good cause to suspect of committing or being about to commit any misdemeanour. (`Section XVI of Ordinance 14 of 1845.`)\n\n3. Under `Section XX of Ordinance 10 of 1867`, a Police Officer receives authority to enter premises suspected to be used as an unlicensed brothel, and to arrest the keeper, and being therefore in such house by lawful authority he makes the other arrests indicated.\n\n4. I may add that in, I believe, the majority of cases it is only after enquiry before the Magistrate that it can be determined which of the persons arrested is to be taken as the keeper. It is simply ...\n\nDRAFT. \n21 \nThe oaeg. \n19660 #hong. \nNo.263 \nMINUTE.\n\n| Name | \n| --- | \n| Mr. Qucas | \n| Mr. De Robect | \n| Mr. Wingfield | \n| XMr. Bramston | \n| Mr. Meade | \n| Mr. Herbert | \n| Mr. Ashley | \n| X Lord Kimberley |\n\nWhen this has \nthe pafes \nwill be \nAns \n₫ 5950/65 \nSin \n7 Dec. 82 \n684 \n\nI have the honour to \nact: the receife of \nYou desp: no. 24. of \nthe 28th of Sept \ngone \ndresing attention to \nwrors in the statement \nof seccifts and expenditure \nfrom the operation of \nCollected for printing \nthe Contagione Sisenses", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-202 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1882 [7-9].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 330065, "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": "CO129-224 - Foreign Office - 1885", "page_number": 388, "title": "CO129-224 - Foreign Office - 1885", "content_text": "## 2\n\nproperly be answered in the sense indicated by the Colonial Office in their letter to the Foreign Office of the 25th June.\n\nThat Sir Julian Pauncefote was to add that, with reference to paragraph 2 of the letter, the Imperial Extradition Acts had not been applied by Order in Council to section 21 of the Treaty of Tien-tsin.\n\nIn obedience to your Lordship's commands, we have the honour to report: That our reply to the questions contained in the Colonial Office letter of the 25th June is as follows:-\n\n1. The Extradition Acts 1870 and 1873 do not apply to the Treaty of Tien-tsin; but the provisions of those Acts, which might at any time, at the will of Her Majesty's Government, be applied to the Treaty of Tien-tsin, have some bearing on the controversy, as showing the measures taken by Her Majesty's Government to fulfil their Treaty obligations for the surrender of fugitive criminals to Governments other than the Chinese, and especially that in the case of other Treaties, the proof of the guilt of any person whose surrender is claimed is left to the Judicial and not to the Executive authorities.\n\n2. The procedure in cases under Article XXI of the Treaty of Tien-tsin is at present regulated by Colonial Ordinances No. 2 of 1850 and No. 2 of 1871.\n\n3. We think it is the intention of the Colonial Ordinance No. 2 of 1850 that the \"proof of guilt\" required by Article XXI of the Treaty of Tien-tsin shall be submitted to, and judged of by, the magistrate. But we cannot say that the terms of the Ordinance exclude the exercise by the Governor of a discretionary power to discharge a prisoner who has been committed to prison by a magistrate. We are therefore of opinion that the discharge of the Chinese prisoners by the Governor of Hong Kong was not an infraction of British Law.\n\nBut we are asked a further question in your Lordship's letter: Whether the demand of the Chinese Minister shall be again refused?\n\nWe must observe that the Treaty obligation of Her Majesty's Government to that of China cannot be diminished or qualified by the municipal law at any time existing in Hong Kong. Upon tendering \"proof of guilt,\" the Chinese Governor is entitled by the Treaty to have a fugitive criminal surrendered.\n\nAs to what is \"proof of guilt\" under the Treaty, we concur with the opinion of the Law Officers in 1863, that \"reasonable evidence ought to be accepted as sufficient, such, for example, as would lead a Grand Jury in this country to find a true Bill, where the evidence is ex parte only, or such as, with evidence on both sides, would induce a magistrate to commit for trial.\"\n\nThis view is confirmed by the opinion of the Privy Council in the case of the Attorney-General of Hong Kong v. Kwok-a-Sing (5 L. R., P. C., App, 199), and in the despatch of Lord Granville to Marquis Tsêng of the 9th February, 1885, it is admitted that \"proof of guilt\" does not mean such absolute proof as would be necessary to support final conviction.\n\nWe think that in the present case, such proof of guilt as is required by the Treaty has been brought forward by the Chinese Government. The two magistrates at Hong Kong who successively heard the evidence against the prisoners thought there was probable cause for believing that the prisoners had committed the crime alleged, and accordingly committed the prisoners under section 3 of the Hong Kong Ordinance No. 2 of 1850. The Governor of Hong Kong and the majority of his Council \"concur with the magistrates who tried the case, and saw the demeanour of the accused and of the witnesses, that there is a prima facie case against the prisoners.\" They had, however, received instructions from the Colonial Office that proof of guilt should be such as, on the whole, to satisfy the minds of the Council; and this they seem to have erroneously understood to mean that it should be such as to support a final conviction.\n\nWe cannot therefore advise your Lordship upon legal grounds to again refuse the demand of the Chinese Minister.\n\nThere may be considerations of expediency which, in the judgment of Her Majesty's Government, justify such refusal.\n\nWe feel as strongly as any one that if it be the fact that prisoners so surrendered are subjected to torture, means should, if possible, be taken to render it impossible that torture should be applied. We think, further, that it would be preferable that there should be no agreement for the surrender of prisoners to the Chinese Government as long as there is substantial reason to believe that the horrible practice of torturing accused persons is followed. But we, as the Legal Advisers of the Government, are bound, with great reluctance, to express our opinion that the Chinese Government have done what is requisite to entitle them under the Treaty of Tien-tsin to the surrender of the persons in question.\n\nWe have, &c.\n\n(Signed)\n\n**RICHARD E. WEBSTER.** \n**J. E. GORST.**\n\n## 3\n\n385\n\nReport that the Ordinance No. 2, 1850, governs this case.\n\nThe Treaty of Tien-tsin, Article XXI, merely directs that Chinese criminals, upon requisition by the Chinese authorities, shall, on proof of their guilt, be delivered up.\n\nThe Treaty is silent as to the course to be taken with the view of deciding finally on proof of guilt.\n\nThe Extradition Acts, 1870 and 1873, do not apply.\n\nThe several Extradition Treaties can be referred to but as analogies, or illustrations, if they can be used even to that extent; they are binding only as between the two countries who enter into the particular contract.\n\nThe course of procedure must therefore be sought for, and is to be found in the Ordinance, which it was, I conceive, within the power of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong to issue.\n\nArticle 1 of this Ordinance gives the magistrate or Court the power to detain the person charged with the commission of a crime and to investigate the alleged crime.\n\nArticle 3 gives the magistrate, if there is probable cause for believing that the said person has committed the crime, power to commit him to prison for safe custody, and to direct the gaoler to detain him in prison until the said gaoler shall receive some order from the Governor relative to the further detention, discharge, or transmission of such person to the Chinese authorities. And the said magistrate or Court shall, upon making such committal as aforesaid, transmit to the said Governor the Minutes of such investigation, and all documents in his or its possession connected with the charge against such person, in order that such person may be dealt with according to the Treaties aforesaid.\n\nThis Article, in my opinion, gives the Governor authority to inquire into the charge and the evidence adduced before the magistrate or the Court. (The Minutes and documents are sent to him seemingly for that purpose.)\n\nThe Governor, in accordance with his view of the charge, and evidence in support of the charge, may order the further detention, discharge, or transmission of the person committed by the magistrate.\n\nThe Governor has in this instance, upon a review of the proceedings, ordered the release or discharge of the men.\n\nI am unable to agree with the Attorney- and Solicitor-General in advising your Lordship that there are no legal grounds for refusing the demand of the Chinese Minister, for I consider that the demand may properly be refused upon legal grounds.\n\n(A) `Treaty of Tien-tsin, June 26, 1858`. \n(B) `Hong Kong Ordinance No. 2 of 1850`. \n(C) `Ditto No. 2 of 1871`.\n\nI have, &c.\n\n(Signed)\n\n**J. PARKER DEANE.**\n\nList of Papers.\n\n(D) To Law Officers, June 14, 1882, with Report attached.\n\nInclosures: Consul Hewlett, No. 14, of April 29, 1881; Colonial Office, March 2; ditto, May 5; ditto, May 8; ditto, May 19; ditto, May 27; to Colonial Office, April 18, 1882; to Sir R. Alcock, December 11, 1865.\n\n(E) Law Officers, September 18, 1884.\n\nInclosures: Law Officers, February 24, 1863; ditto, November 25, 1865; Colonial Office, April 12, 1883; Law Officers, July 22, 1882; to Marquis Tseng, July 27, 1883; Colonial Office, January 15; ditto, February 8; to Colonial Office, February 23, 1884.\n\n(F) Law Officers, February 6, 1885.\n\nInclosures: Marquis Tseng, August 16; Law Officers, September 18; Marquis Tseng, September 24; to Colonial Office, September 30; Colonial Office, October 3; to Colonial Office, October 4; Colonial Office, October 7; to Colonial Office, October 9; Colonial Office, October 14; to Marquis Tseng, October 18; Colonial Office, December 5, 1884; ditto, January 15, 1885.\n\n(G) Marquis Tsêng, December 8, 1884.\n\n(H) Ditto, June 18, 1885.\n\n(I) Colonial Office, June 25, 1885.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-224 - Foreign Office - 1885.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 331009, "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": "CO129-227 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1886 [6]", "page_number": 92, "title": "CO129-227 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1886 [6]", "content_text": "\"moments, to reflection should have convinced \"him that the Committee was not likely to be invested with & Judicial functions, wenst scocesarily report und in be \" a matter of time, and that therefore these \"delinquents would have no notice taken \" of their malpractices till too late to be of urich use \" whotly deur to; became I was not with aware of the component parts of the Committe until duas face to face with them on the 21th July; Communication that I saw was made to me why the Secret Committee should not be swested with quasi Judicial powers. I had reflected on the matter several times, and my instinct was that the proposed Secret Committee would be cudowed with powers by the 90 power similar to those given by Straits Government to the Commission appointed to inquire into the Secret societies of Penang, or to Judges appointed to inquire into British Parliamentary Elections - viz:- power to examine on oath, to commit refractory witnesses, and to grant certificates of immunity. Further, I had no idea that the Committee would not sit until eight weeks after the receipt of the letter, which was the origin of the inquiry, or that its scope would be enlarged to the extent it appears to have been. (Para 3) Prompt action and a wholesome warning and deterrent to others were what was required.\"", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-227 - Acting Governor Marsh - 1886 [6].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 334316, "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": 138, "title": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]", "content_text": "36.\n\n! \n\nof both sides as to the course to adopt and \n\nstated that my own opinion was that the \n\nrendition case should be postponed until \n\nthe case arising out of the proceedings had been determined. No objection to this course was raised on the part of the Counsel representing the Chinese Government, while the other side asked for the immediate discharge of the prisoners in this case. My idea in postponing the case was that I thought any action taken in this case might be calculated to prejudice the perjury case in one way or another, and that therefore it would be advisable to stand by and wait until the other case was concluded. Accordingly the case has been postponed from week to week until yesterday, when it was further adjourned until to-day. During the last few days I received a letter from the Government instructing me to abide in my action by the opinion of the Attorney General \"which was transmitted to me. In that communication the Attorney General says — \n\n• I submit that the Magistrate acted irregularly and contrary to all practice in postponing the rendition case until after \n\nthe trial of the witness Leung Ayou, for perjury. I will therefore now resume the case at the point where I left it off. I left off at the point at which the witness, Leung Ayon, was being cross-examined as to the marks which he had upon his arm. \n\nI said then before the prosecution was commenced against him for perjury that I would hear the evidence with regard to this mark and would then allow the other side to bring rebutting evidence. I will now ask Mr Dennys to produce any further evidence he wishes to bring bearing on the evidence of this man, and I \n\nwill give the other side whatever opportunity they wish to bring further rebutting evidence. \n\nExtract from the Daily Press.\n\nHis Worship-In the first place, with regard to the proceedings that have been taken so far, it will have been noticed that throughout I have made a distinction between taking evidence as regards the prima facie case and evidence as regards the defence for the prisoners. When a witness was produced before me on the part of the prosecution whose evidence was of immense weight in making out a prima facie case, seeing that cross-examination was allowed and that in the course of that cross-examination it became likely that the story told by the witness was untrue from beginning to end and that he was merely personating somebody who might have been an important witness in the case I thought it was my duty to test the truth of the counter statement put forward in the course of cross-examination. I can scarcely think that this court is to be regarded simply as a court of registry for statements made on oath by Chinese and that it is not competent for the court, having information in its possession altogether tending to entirely upset the story told by the witness, to test that story by the merits of the other information which the court has it in its power to produce. So far therefore as the evidence of the witness Leong Ayow is concerned I must, in deciding whether a prima facie case has been made out, look at it by the light of the whole of the evidence which has been adduced regarding that man.\n\nThe Chinese Government were within their right in declining to enter into the question, but I must remember that they had the opportunity of doing so, and therefore I go by the evidence before me. By the light of that evidence I consider Leong Ayow's story as absolutely unworthy of credit.\n\nWith regard to the whole case generally, it is of a highly unsatisfactory kind. There is a taint of collusion running through the whole of it. Witnesses are brought forward who with monotonous regularity testify to certain points connected with each prisoner which if true would criminally compromise each one of them, but it is a singular coincidence that of the men arrested under the eight warrants of arrest these three should be the ones who happened to be specially connected with the tying up and keeping guard over the particular witnesses who have come down on independent grounds to testify in the case. Other points have been brought forward by Mr Dennys in his analysis of the evidence gravely tending to discredit the whole of their evidence. Considering the doubtful testimony in the case on its own merits it becomes a point of great significance that the second prisoner should have been identified as at one and the same time keeping guard over one of the witnesses in Ma She's house and keeping guard over another of the witnesses in the guard house, the only reason given in each case for the identification being that he was so keeping guard.\n\nIf, therefore, I felt that the decision of the case finally rested with me I should have no hesitation whatever in deciding that the case was not made out. But at this point I am brought up by a consideration of what there is before me to guide me as to my powers. Of course I am bound by the Ordinance No. 2 of 1850 read in conjunction with Ordinance No. 2 of 1871 and the Treaty of Tientsin. The language of that Ordinance is capable of a good deal of variety of interpretation, and in the absence of any ruling of interpretation by a court competent to deal with such matters I feel it would not be proper for me to strain my powers, but that I should leave doubtful points for decision to be forced upon me by mandamus from the Supreme Court or by such other constitutional ways as there are for enforcing orders on the magistrate. For my own information and guidance I have the following extract of a letter from the Government :- His Excellency desires to call the attention of the Magistrates to section 3 of Ordinance No. 2 of 1850, according to which the Magistrate is to commit when there is probable cause for believing the accused has committed a crime. The Privy Council in the case of the Attorney-General of Hongkong versus Kwok A Shing had to consider the Ordinance and the powers and provisions of this Ordinance. The Judges speak of prima facie evidence to justify the Magistrate in committing. There is no doubt that \"probable cause\" and \"prima facie evidence\" are synonymous terms. By the Treaty of Tientsin this Government is bound on certain requirements being complied with to deliver up criminals who have taken refuge in Hongkong. The Magistrates cannot require such proof of guilt as would warrant a conviction. It is their duty under the Ordinance above mentioned to commit as soon as a prima facie case has been made out, and His Excellency in calling the attention of the Magistrates to the Ordinance and to the case above cited would suggest that they should restrict their inquiry accordingly, as he is of opinion that to require complete proof would be going contrary to the provisions of the Treaty and the clear enactments of the Ordinance.\n\n37.\n\n134\n\nIn the absence, therefore, of authoritative judicial dicta I take my stand upon the principles laid down for my guidance in what I have just read. The question then arises, has a prima facie case been made out? And in deciding whether a prima facie case has been made out is it competent for the other side to call witnesses for the defence? I am clearly of opinion that to call witnesses for the defence would be travelling beyond the province of my powers in this case; it would be constituting me judge of the merits of the whole case rather than judge of the point whether a case for the prosecution was established.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 334349, "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": 171, "title": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]", "content_text": "a prima facie case, and had committed the prisoners to prison to await the Governor's orders, unless there were good and strong grounds sufficient to justify the Governor in Council in differing from the Magistrate.\n\nto you that in giving my decision I stated what I considered to be my position in terms which, for convenience sake, I reproduce.\n\nHis Worship—In the first place, with regard to the proceedings that have been taken so far, it will have been noticed that throughout I have made a distinction between taking evidence as regards the prima facie case and evidence as regards the defence for the prisoners. When a witness was produced before me on the part of the prosecution whose evidence was of immense weight in making out a prima facie case, seeing that cross-examination was allowed and that in the course of that cross-examination it became likely that the story told by the witness was untrue from beginning to end and that he was merely personating somebody who might have been an important witness in the case, I thought it was my duty to test the truth of the counter statement put forward in the course of cross-examination.\n\nI can scarcely think that this court is to be regarded simply as a court of registry for statements made on oath by Chinese and that it is not competent for the court, having information in its possession altogether tending to entirely upset the story told by the witness, to test that story by the merits of the other information which the court has it in its power to produce.\n\nSo far, therefore, as the evidence of the witness Leong Ayow is concerned, I must, in deciding whether a prima facie case has been made out, look at it by the light of the whole of the evidence which has been adduced regarding that man.\n\nThe Chinese Government were within their right in declining to enter into the question, but I must remember that they had the opportunity of doing so, and therefore I go by the evidence before me. By the light of that evidence, I consider Leong Ayow's story as absolutely unworthy of credence.\n\nWith regard to the whole case generally, it is of a highly unsatisfactory kind. There is a taint of collusion running through the whole of it. Witnesses are brought forward who, with monotonous regularity, testify to certain points connected with each prisoner which, if true, would criminally compromise each one of them, but it is a singular coincidence that of the men arrested under the eight warrants of arrest, these three should be the ones who happened to be specially connected with the tying up and keeping guard over the particular witnesses who have come down on independent grounds to testify in the case.\n\nOther points have been brought forward by Mr. Dennys in his analysis of the evidence gravely tending to discredit the whole of their evidence. Considering the doubtful testimony in the case on its own merits, it becomes a point of great significance that the second prisoner should have been identified as at one and the same time keeping guard over one of the witnesses in Ma She's house and keeping guard over another of the witnesses in the guard house, the only reason given in each case for the identification being that he was so keeping guard.\n\nIf, therefore, I felt that the decision of the case finally rested with me, I should have no hesitation whatever in deciding that the case was not made out.\n\nBut at this point, I am brought up by a consideration of what there is before me to guide me as to my powers. Of course, I am bound by the Ordinance No. 2 of 1850 read in conjunction with Ordinance No. 2 of 1871 and the Treaty of Tientsin.\n\nThe language of that Ordinance is capable of a good deal of variety of interpretation, and in the absence of any ruling of interpretation by a court competent to deal with such matters, I feel it would not be proper for me to strain my powers, but that I should leave doubtful points for decision to be forced upon me by mandamus from the Supreme Court or by such other constitutional ways as there are for enforcing orders on the magistrate.\n\nFor my own information and guidance, I have the following extract of a letter from the Government:—\n\nHis Excellency desires to call the attention of the Magistrates to section 3 of Ordinance No. 2 of 1850, according to which the Magistrate is to commit when there is probable cause for believing the accused has committed a crime.\n\nThe Privy Council in the case of the Attorney-General of Hongkong versus Kwok Ashing had to consider the provisions of this Ordinance and the powers and duties under it. The Judges speak of prima facie evidence and of the sufficiency of prima facie evidence to justify the Magistrate in committing.\n\nThere is no doubt that \"probable cause\" and \"prima facie evidence\" are synonymous.\n\nBy the Treaty of Tientsin, this Government is bound on certain terms, certain requirements being complied with, to deliver up criminals who have taken refuge in Hongkong, such proof of guilt as would warrant a conviction.\n\nThe Magistrates cannot require such proof. It is their duty, under the Ordinance above mentioned, to commit upon a prima facie case being made out, and His Excellency, in calling the attention of the Magistrates to the Ordinance and to the case above cited, would suggest that they should restrict their inquiry accordingly, as he is of opinion that to require complete proof would be going contrary to the provisions of the Treaty and the clear arrangements of the Ordinance.\n\nIn the absence, therefore, of authoritative judicial dicta, I take my stand upon the principles laid down for my guidance in what I have just read.\n\nThe question then arises, has a prima facie case been made out? And in deciding whether a prima facie case has been made out, is it competent for the other side to call witnesses for the defence?\n\nI am clearly of opinion that to call witnesses for the defence would be travelling beyond the province of my powers in this case; it would be constituting me judge of the merits of the whole case rather than judge of the point whether a case for the prosecution was, as it were, properly before the court.\n\nPage 166", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 334377, "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": 199, "title": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]", "content_text": "In reply to Mr. Dennys one of the witnesses stated that Macao was in Heung Shan, and that Hongkong was, geographically, in Kwangtung.\n\nHis Worship-Geographically?\n\nMr. Dennys-Yes, any Chinaman here would tell you he belonged to Kwangtung. There the question arises as to the nationality of the boat. In the case of the Arrow War, it was held that a junk registered in Hongkong, even after the register had ceased, was a British ship, and we went to war with China on the question.\n\nHis Worship-In the first place, with regard to the proceedings that have been taken so far, it will have been noticed that throughout I have made a distinction between taking evidence as regards the prima facie case and evidence as regards the defence for the prisoners. When a witness was produced before me on the part of the prosecution whose evidence was of immense weight in making out a prima facie case, seeing that cross-examination was allowed and that in the course of that cross-examination it became likely that the story told by the witness was untrue from beginning to end and that he was merely personating somebody who might have been an important witness in the case, I thought it was my duty to test the truth of the counter statement put forward in the course of cross-examination. I can scarcely think that this court is to be regarded simply as a court of registry for statements made on oath by Chinese and that it is not competent for the court, having information in its possession altogether tending to entirely upset the story told by the witness, to test that story by the merits of the other information which the court has it in its power to produce. So far therefore as the evidence of the witness Leong Ayow is concerned, I must, in deciding whether a prima facie case has been made out, look at it by the light of the whole of the evidence which has been adduced regarding that man. The Chinese Government were within their right in declining to enter into the question, but I must remember that they had the opportunity of doing so. Therefore, I go by the evidence before me. By the light of that evidence, I consider Leong Ayow's story as absolutely unworthy of credit. With regard to the whole case generally, it is of a highly unsatisfactory kind. There is a taint of collusion running through the whole of it. Witnesses are brought forward who with monotonous regularity testify to certain points connected with each prisoner which, if true, would criminally compromise each one of them, but it is a singular coincidence that of the men arrested under the eight warrants of arrest, they should be the ones who happened to be specially connected with the tying up and keeping guard over the particular witnesses who have come down on independent grounds to testify in the case. Other points have been brought forward by Mr. Dennys in his analysis of the evidence gravely tending to discredit the whole of their evidence. Considering the doubtful testimony in the case on its own merits, it becomes a point of great significance that the second prisoner should have been identified as at one and the same time keeping guard over one of the witnesses in Ma She’s house and keeping guard over another of the witnesses in the guard house, the only reason given in each case for the identification being that he was so keeping guard. It, therefore, I felt that the decision of the case finally rested with me, I should have no hesitation whatever in deciding that the case was not made out. But at this point, I am brought up by a consideration of what there is before me to guide me as to my powers.\n\nOf course, I am bound by the Ordinance No. 2 of 1850 read in conjunction with Ordinance No. 2 of 1871 and the Treaty of Tientsin. The language of that Ordinance is capable of a good deal of variety of interpretation, and in the absence of any ruling of interpretation by a court competent to deal with such matters, I feel it would not be proper for me to strain my powers, but that I should leave doubtful points for decision to be forced upon me by mandamus from the Supreme Court or by such other constitutional ways as there are for enforcing orders on the magistrate. For my own information and guidance, I have the following extract of a letter from the Government:---\n\nHis Excellency desires to call the attention of the Magistrates to section 3 of Ordinance No. 2 of 1850: according to which the Magistrate is to commit when there is probable cause for believing the accused has committed a crime. The Privy Council in the case of the Attorney-General of Hongkong vs. Kwok A Sing had to consider the meaning of this Ordinance and the powers and duties and speak of prima facie evidence and of the sufficiency of prima facie evidence to justify the Magistrate in committing. There is no doubt that \"probable cause\" and \"prima facie evidence\" are anonymous terms. By the Treaty of Tientsin, this Government, certain requirements being complied with, is to deliver criminals who have taken refuge in Hongkong. Magistrates cannot require such proof of guilt as would warrant a conviction. It is their duty under the Ordinance above mentioned to commit as soon as a prima facie case has been made out, and his Excellency, in calling the attention of the Magistrates to the Ordinance and to the case above cited, would suggest that they should restrict their inquiry accordingly, as he is of opinion that to require complete proof would be going contrary to the provisions of the Treaty and the clear enactments of the Ordinance.\n\nIn the absence, therefore, of authoritative judicial dicta, I take my stand upon the principles laid down for my guidance in what I have just read. The question then arises, has a prima facie case been made out? And in deciding whether a prima facie case has been made out, is it competent for the other side to call witnesses for the defence? I am clearly of opinion that to call witnesses for the defence would be travelling beyond the province of my powers in this case; it would be constituting me judge of the merits of the whole case rather than judge of the point whether a case for the prosecution was established. I therefore decline to receive evidence on behalf of the defence. As to whether a prima facie case has been made out, that also has to depend in a great measure upon what one may conceive to be the requirements of a prima facie case, and I am inclined to think so long as there is evidence which, whatever I may think, I am nevertheless unable to say is false, to that extent and to that extent only is the case made out. Had there been any other evidence forthcoming of the same kind as that which has been adduced in the case of Leong Ayow, I should have taken it into consideration. If, for instance, it had been proved to me that one of the watchmen was, say, at the time this affair is supposed to have taken place a constable in the Police Force of Hongkong, I should clearly have considered it within my right to take evidence on such a point. Or again, had the woman who describes herself as the amah of Yow Ma She been known to be all the time in the domestic employ of some one in Hongkong, I should also have considered it right to take such evidence. But merely contradictory evidence, such as that of an alibi, or evidence of that kind, I consider would not be within my power to allow. Considering, then, all that has been urged by the defence as against the evidence for the prosecution, admitting that it is tainted throughout, and that if I were in the position of a jury or the final decision rested with me, I should unhesitatingly throw it on one side, I nevertheless admit that to the extent of evidence having been given criminating the prisoners, there is a prima facie case made out against them. I shall therefore commit the prisoners for safe custody to prison and shall direct the gaoler to detain them in prison until he shall receive some order from the Governor of Hongkong relative to the further detention, discharge, or transmission of such persons to the nearest Chinese authorities or to such other Chinese authorities as the Governor shall think fit. And in transmitting, as by Ordinance I am bound to do, the minutes of the investigation and the documents connected with the charge, I shall state what I have stated to-day, and it will then rest with the Government to decide on their final action. Looking at the case from this point of view, the Governor appears to me to have very much the same duties as the Attorney-General or the Grand Jury. He decides on the detention, discharge, or transmission of the accused.\n\nMr. Dennys-He has no evidence before him on behalf of the defendants. The Grand Jury has, so has the Attorney-General.\n\nHis Worship-The minutes of the evidence go before him.\n\nMr. Dennys-But not evidence for the defence. I merely throw that out.\n\nPage 194", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 334383, "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": 205, "title": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]", "content_text": "say that he had reasonable cause for believing that the prisoner committed the offence impute to him?: He did not think for one moment that the Magistrate believed the man guilty. If their Lordships would read his (Mr. Dennys') affidavit they would see that the prisoner had been committed upon the order of the Governor. The Magistrate said \"I have orders from the Government that as soon as a prima facie case is made out I am bound to commit.\" But a prima facie case was made out the moment the first witness for the prosecution stepped into the box and gave his evidence. Their Lordships must go upon that understanding now if they decided that the conviction must be upheld. He was perfectly certain that the court would agree with him that the mere fact of evidence being given of a crime that has been committed is no proof of guilt against a prisoner. The evidence of the man Leang Yi was to the effect that one of the men, at the time the burglary took place, tied him up and kept guard over him, and he swore positively to the second prisoner being the man. He should say that the second prisoner, who has since committed suicide, was not defended by anybody. The first and third prisoners only were defended by solicitors and the solicitors for these two did not consider it their duty to examine this man as he did not, in any way, incriminate their clients. Another witness was an amah living in the house, and she again could not swear to the prisoners. She simply stated that the crime was committed. The prosecution then put forward a witness who made out a nice, clear, straightforward case against the prisoners. This was Leung Ayow, who called himself the nephew of the rich old lady whose house was robbed, and who swore he was in the house at the time the burglary took place. Mr. Dennys then went on to recite at some length the evidence as given by Leung Ayow before the Magistrate. Having read this and pointed out how they had called evidence which entirely destroyed the idea of Leung Ayow being a credible witness, he went on to say that the Magistrate had stated that he did not believe one word of Leung Ayow's statement. How then could the Magistrate feel justified in signing a warrant for committal as being satisfied of the guilt of the prisoner? And then with reference to the Magistrate refusing to hear evidence on behalf of the prisoners. The prisoners were able to produce witnesses to prove their innocence, who attended at the court and were prepared to go into the witness box, but the Magistrate refused to hear them because the Government had told him that as soon as a prima facie case was made out he must commit the prisoners. There was no evidence before the Magistrate to justify him deciding that the prisoners were Chinese subjects. There was a distinction between prima facie evidence and a prima facie case. Prima facie evidence was that which established a case with a degree of probability before rebutting evidence was called. A prima facie case must show evidence against the prisoner, but in such case the Magistrate before detaining him must hold investigation. The Magistrate in this case had held no such investigation. The meaning of the word \"investigate,\" according to Webster, was to search carefully and examine accurately into. Their Lordships would agree with him that the Magistrate had not investigated this case, in the true meaning of the word. He rested his application upon two grounds, first as to there being no evidence as to the prisoners being Chinese subjects; and, secondly, that there was no reasonable amount of evidence in proof of their having committed the offence.\n\nHis Lordship then called upon Mr. Francis for reply, when Mr. Francis said he believed Mr. Wodehouse wished first to address the court.\n\nThe Acting Chief Justice said he thought Mr. Wodehouse was not called upon to address the Court. The statements made were merely ex parte. Mr. Wodehouse was only doing what was perfectly within his right when he signed the warrant for committal.\n\nMr. Wodehouse then withdrew from the court.\n\nMr. Francis said the only question before the Court was whether the prisoner was properly detained in Hongkong Gaol at the present moment. Undoubtedly the treaty with China said that in extradition cases the prisoner was to be handed over to the Chinese authorities on \"Proof of guilt.\" The Ordinance they had to consider was 2 of 1850, for the later one of 1871 was merely a re-enactment of the former Ordinance. The Magistrate by that Ordinance was to investigate the case in the same manner as if the offence had been committed within the jurisdiction of the Government of Hongkong. Now in the case of an indictable offence the Magistrate was not bound to take the evidence of witnesses for the defence.\n\nThe Acting Chief Justice asked the learned Counsel if he could give any authority for that. Mr. Francis said he could not do so at the moment as he had not come prepared, not knowing that the point would be raised. There were few cases of like nature to refer to. He based his argument upon “Clark on Extradition\" and contended that the Magistrate was not legally bound to take evidence for the defence inasmuch as it would be useless for judicial purposes.\n\nThe Acting Chief Justice then read an extract describing the usual course of procedure in ordinary criminal cases. It was the custom for the Magistrate after hearing the evidence for the prosecution to ask the prisoner if he had anything to say and the prisoner either made his defence or reserved it until tried at the Supreme Court.\n\nMr. Francis said that what his Lordship had just read only related to the prisoner's personal statement. He could not call any witnesses. In England in rendition cases it was the custom for the Magistrate to simply take the evidence of the prosecution, and a prima facie case having been made out the prisoner was handed over, and here he submitted the proceedings were substantially the same. With reference to the question as to whether the prisoner was a Chinese subject, he contended that there was sufficient prima facie evidence before the Magistrate for him to come to the conclusion that he was. There was evidence to show that the prisoner was at the time in Chinese territory, that he wore the Chinese dress and spoke the Chinese language, and therefore the onus of proof lay with him to show that he was not of that nationality.\n\nAt this point the court adjourned for tiffin.\n\nPage 12\n\nOn reassembling Mr. Francis stated he had looked up several books to find the authority his Lordship had asked for. The learned counsel then read a lengthy extract from \"Stephen's History of Criminal Law\" in support of his previous argument, and contended that the Magistrate had no option but to act as he did.\n\nMr. Justice Leach-Is the man then to remain under the stigma of the accusation without being allowed to call any evidence in defence until tried at the Supreme Court?\n\nMr. Francis-That is the law here.\n\nThe Acting Chief Justice-Suppose a man should be charged with being in possession of stolen property and he can call a large number of witnesses to prove that he came honestly by it?\n\nMr. Francis said the Magistrate of course had a discretionary power to allow the prisoner to call witnesses to prove his innocence, but he was not obliged by law to do so. If there were half a dozen witnesses to prove an accusation against a prisoner and the prisoner could call fifty reliable and accredited witnesses to prove the contrary, of course, it would be very foolish of a Magistrate to refuse to allow him to call his witnesses; but still he would be acting quite within his powers in refusing, and committing the prisoner for trial. He believed a case had never arisen before in which a Magistrate had refused to take such evidence, but still he submitted to the court that the Magistrate had only done what he had perfect right to do. He should ask permission of the court to run as briefly as possible the chief points in the evidence before the Magistrate, and he thought their Lordships would agree with him that there was sufficient prima facie evidence to justify the Magistrate in committing the prisoner. The learned counsel then went over the depositions of the witnesses taken in the Police Court enquiry, and said he was certain that on much weaker evidence than that just read by him, many a man had been committed for trial at the Supreme Court.\n\nHe would go further and say that on much weaker evidence than that many a man had, in that very court, been convicted by the jury and sentenced by the judge.\n\nThe Acting Chief Justice said that he considered the case a most important one, which would require a good deal of consideration, and therefore the Court would reserve judgment.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 336019, "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": "CO129-236 - Others - 1887", "page_number": 104, "title": "CO129-236 - Others - 1887", "content_text": "# Statement of the magistrate when committing Leung a Fu to gaol.\n\nHis Worship-In the first place, with regard to the proceedings that have been taken so far, it will have been noticed that throughout I have made a distinction between taking evidence as regards the prima facie case and evidence as regards the defence for the prisoners. When a witness was produced before me on the part of the prosecution whose evidence was of immense weight in making out a prima facie case, seeing that cross-examination was allowed and that in the course of that cross-examination it became likely that the story told by the witness was untrue from beginning to end and that he was merely personating somebody who might have been an important witness in the case, I thought it was my duty to test the truth of the contrary statement put forward in the course of cross-examination. I can scarcely think that this court is to be regarded simply as a court of registry for statements made on oath by Chinese and that it is not competent for the court, having information in its possession altogether tending to entirely upset the story told by the witness, to test that story by the merits of the other information which the court has it in its power to produce. So far, therefore, as the evidence of the witness Leong Ayow is concerned, I must, in deciding whether a prima facie case has been made out, look at it by the light of the whole of the evidence which has been adduced regarding that man. The Chinese Government were within their right in declining to enter into the question, but I must remember that they had the opportunity of doing so, and therefore I go by the evidence before me. By the light of that evidence, I consider Leong Ayow's story as absolutely unworthy of credence.\n\nWith regard to the whole case generally, it is of a highly unsatisfactory kind. There is a taint of collusion running through the whole of it. Witnesses are brought forward who with monotonous regularity testify to certain points connected with each prisoner which, if true, would criminally compromise each one of them, but it is a singular coincidence that of the men arrested under the eight warrants of arrest, these three should be the ones who happened to be specially connected with the tying up and keeping guard over the particular witnesses who have come down on independent grounds to testify in the case. Other points have been brought forward by Mr. Dennys in his analysis of the evidence gravely tending to discredit the whole of their evidence. Considering the doubtful testimony in the case on its own merits, it becomes a point of great significance that the second prisoner should have been identified as at one and the same time keeping guard over one of the witnesses in Ma She's house and keeping guard over another of the witnesses in the guard house, the only reason given in each case for the identification being that he was so keeping guard. If, therefore, I felt that the decision of the case finally rested with me, I should have no hesitation whatever in deciding that the case was not made out.\n\nBut at this point, I am brought up by a consideration of what there is before me to guide me as to my powers. Of course, I am bound by the **Ordinance No. 2 of 1850** read in conjunction with **Ordinance No. 2 of 1871** and the **Treaty of Tientsin**. The language of that Ordinance is capable of a good deal of variety of interpretation, and in the absence of any ruling of interpretation by a court competent to deal with such matters, I feel it would not be proper for me to strain my powers, but that I should leave doubtful points for decision to be forced upon me by mandamus from the Supreme Court or by such other constitutional ways as there are for enforcing orders on the magistrate. For my own information and guidance, I have the following extract of a letter from the Government:-\n\nHis Excellency desires to call the attention of the Magistrates to section 3 of **Ordinance No. 2 of 1850**, according to which the Magistrate is to commit when there is probable cause for believing the accused has committed a crime. The Privy Council in the case of the **Attorney-General of Hongkong versus Kwok Ashing** had to consider the provisions of this Ordinance and the powers and duties under it. The Judges speak of prima facie evidence and of the sufficiency of prima facie evidence to justify the Magistrate in committing. There is no doubt that \"probable cause\" and \"prima facie evidence\" are synonymous terms. By the **Treaty of Tientsin**, this Government is bound on certain requirements being complied with to deliver up criminals who have taken refuge in Hongkong. The Magistrates cannot require such proof of guilt as would warrant a conviction. It is their duty under the Ordinance above mentioned to commit as soon as a prima facie case has been made out, and His Excellency, in calling the attention of the Magistrates to the Ordinance and to the case above cited, would suggest that they should restrict their inquiry accordingly, as he is of opinion that to require complete proof would be going contrary to the provisions of the Treaty and the clear enactments of the Ordinance.\n\nIn the absence, therefore, of authoritative judicial dicta, I take my stand upon the principles laid down for my guidance in what I have just read. The question then arises, has a prima facie case been made out? And in deciding whether a prima facie case has been made out, is it competent for the other side to call witnesses for the defence? I am clearly of opinion that to call witnesses for the defence would be travelling beyond the province of my powers in this case; it would be constituting me judge of the merits of the whole case rather than judge of the point whether a case for the prosecution was established. I therefore decline to receive evidence on behalf of the defence.\n\nAs to whether a prima facie case has been made out, that also has to depend in a great measure upon what one may conceive to be the requirements of a prima facie case, and I am inclined to think that so long as there is evidence which, whatever I may think, I am nevertheless unable to say is false, to that extent and to that extent only is the case made out. Had there been any other evidence forthcoming of the same kind as that which has been adduced in the case of Leong Ayow, I should have taken it into consideration. If, for instance, it had been proved to me that one of the watchmen was, say, at the time this affair is supposed to have taken place, a constable in the Police Force of Hongkong, I should clearly have considered it within my right to take evidence on such a point. Or again, had the woman who describes herself as the amah of Yow Ma She been known to be all the time in the domestic employ of someone in Hongkong, I should also have considered it right to take such evidence. But merely contradictory evidence, such as that of an alibi, or evidence of that kind, I consider would not be within my power to allow.\n\nConsidering, then, all that has been urged by the defence as against the evidence for the prosecution, admitting that it is tainted throughout, and that if I were in the position of a jury or the final decision rested with me, I should unhesitatingly throw it on one side, I nevertheless admit that to the extent of evidence having been given criminating the prisoners, there is a prima facie case made out against them. I shall therefore commit the prisoners for safe custody to prison and shall direct the gaoler to detain them in prison until he shall receive some order from the Governor of Hongkong relative to the further detention, discharge, or transmission of such persons to the nearest Chinese authorities or to such other Chinese authorities as the Governor shall think fit. And in transmitting, as by Ordinance I am bound to do, the minutes of the investigation and the documents connected with the charge, I shall state what I have stated to-day, and it will then rest with the Government to decide on their final action. Looking at the case from this point of view, the Governor appears to me to have very much the same duties as the Attorney-General or the Grand Jury. He decides on the detention, discharge, or transmission of the accused.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-236 - Others - 1887.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 337475, "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": "CO129-238 - Governor Des Voeus - 1888 [7-8]", "page_number": 506, "title": "CO129-238 - Governor Des Voeus - 1888 [7-8]", "content_text": "# \"Supreme Court shall have power to investigate the alleged crime in the colony\"\n\nThe Magistrate investigates a charge where a person is accused of having committed an indictable offence against the laws of the colony and shall exercise all the like jurisdiction and powers as a magistrate in such cases. (Sec. 3 of draft.)\n\n## Attorney General's Notes\n\n502 Mr Knewell's Memorandum.\n\n### Attorney General's Notes\n\nIt is intended that the Governor should act in a judicial or only ministerial capacity. His discretion may be precisely limited if it is considered desirable.\n\n4. The draft further proceeds to state that the Bill does not contemplate any regular judicial review by the Governor. The Judge, if he finds probable cause, shall commit the offender to prison to await the orders of the Governor, but it does not state whether the Judge is to transmit the proceedings to the Governor as the Magistrate is now required to do.\n\nOn the one hand, it is not intended that the Governor should act in a merely ministerial capacity. On the other hand, it should be remembered that in practice, Judges constantly sit in appeal upon their own decisions.\n\n### Objection to the Draft Proposal\n\nThe draft proposes to enact that the Judge who commits the fugitive with a view to surrender is to inform him of his right to a writ of Habeas Corpus. Now, this only gives a semblance of protection, for the Judge who had made the commitment would probably have much to do with the granting of the writ, or indeed might have to deal with his own work. There are only two law judges here, and often there is only one during the long vacation.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-238 - Governor Des Voeus - 1888 [7-8].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 338272, "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": "CO129-240 - Public Offices & Others - 1888", "page_number": 200, "title": "CO129-240 - Public Offices & Others - 1888", "content_text": "## XX \nBefore ordering a fugitive criminal to be discharged, the Magistrate shall cause notice of his intention to make such order to be served on the Crown Solicitor, and no fugitive criminal shall be discharged by a Magistrate (otherwise than in pursuance of a decision of the Supreme Court or a Judge thereof) unless the Attorney General has had opportunity of appealing.\n\n## XIX \nThe Attorney General may, at any time before the actual discharge of a fugitive criminal, give notice to the Magistrate that he appeals to the Supreme Court against the order, and thereupon the order of discharge shall be suspended until the conclusion of the appeal. The Magistrate shall forthwith transmit to the Registrar of the Supreme Court the depositions and other evidence, and such report upon the case as he thinks fit, and the fugitive criminal shall be detained in custody until further order of the Magistrate.\n\n## XX \nEvery such appeal shall be heard before the Supreme Court or a Judge thereof, and may be heard in Vacation and in Chambers. The Chief Justice shall appoint an early day for the hearing, and notice of the day and hour appointed for hearing shall be given to the Superintendent of the Gaol, who shall cause the fugitive criminal to be brought before the Judge on the hearing of the appeal. The Judge may, if he thinks fit, receive further evidence and shall confirm or rescind the order of discharge. If the Judge is of opinion that the evidence would justify the committal of the accused for trial in the Colony, he shall commit him to the said Gaol to await the order of the Governor in Council.\n\n## XXX \nIf a fugitive criminal who has been committed to prison to await the order of the Governor in Council is not conveyed out of the Colony within two months after the committal, any Judge of the Supreme Court may, upon application made to them by the fugitive criminal and upon proof that reasonable notice of the intention to make such application has been given to the Crown Solicitor, order the fugitive criminal to be discharged out of custody unless sufficient cause is shown to the contrary.\n\n## XXVI \nDepositions or statements on affirmations taken in China before a Magistrate or judicial officer shall be deemed to be duly authenticated for the purposes of this Ordinance if they purport to be certified under the official seal of the Magistrate or judicial officer before whom they were taken. All Courts in the Colony shall, for the purposes of their jurisdiction, take such depositions, statements, or affirmations, and copies thereof, to be the original statements or affirmations taken in judicial proceedings.\n\n## XXX \nEvery person who is accused of having committed, or of being accessory to, or having counseled, procured, commanded, aided, or abetted the commission of an extradition crime, shall be deemed for the purposes of this Ordinance to be accused of having committed such crime and shall be liable to be apprehended and surrendered accordingly.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-240 - Public Offices & Others - 1888.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 365082, "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": "CO129-279 - Public Offices - 1897", "page_number": 329, "title": "CO129-279 - Public Offices - 1897", "content_text": "18\n\n19\n\nBut I do think that the matter is somewhat more complicated than seems to have been originally supposed, and that it ought to be carefully considered from all sides before we commit ourselves to any formal propositions to the Japanese Government on the subject.\n\nApril 10, 1893.\n\nW. E. D.\n\nThe reasons which, on the whole, incline me in favour of a Treaty are :- 1. It would remove a cause of irritation, and render secure the recovery of British fugitives in Japan, which is now rendered precarious by existing circumstances.\n\n2. It is, I think, a great disadvantage to this country, especially in our Eastern and American Colonies, to be unable under any circumstances to get rid of a Japanese fugitive criminal. A man who has committed a murder or a fraud in Japan is a dangerous and undesirable visitor, but without a Treaty we cannot send him away to be punished.\n\n3. I do not undervalue the objections raised by Mr. Davidson, and think it very likely the Japanese attach more importance to the admission of the principle than to the practical usefulness of a Treaty. Still, there is something to be said for the Japanese contention, that our exterritorial jurisdiction—which is the creature of Treaties—does not embrace the power to deal with persons for offences committed outside Japan, a matter which is not expressly stipulated for in any Treaty.\n\nIt is further to be observed that we do not propose to allow British subjects to be tried and punished by Japanese justice. British subjects, fugitives from Japan, would not be given up under the proposed Treaty to be tried and punished in Japan. But the only effect of it, so far as British subjects are concerned, would be that if, after committing crimes in Her Majesty's dominions, they take refuge in Japan, they will be handed over by the Japanese to the British authorities in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law or custom in Japan, instead of being at once seized by the British authorities without the courtesy of asking permission. The effect in this respect would be identical with the arrangements now in force, but the national feeling of Japan in regard to the right of asylum would be conciliated.\n\nI think, then, that the abstract justice and practical utility of a Treaty should be allowed to outweigh the political considerations to the contrary, which do not seem to me to be very strong, and will probably become less so every year.\n\nSir T. Sanderson,\n\nNo. 7.\n\nMinutes.\n\nH. G. B.\n\nI THINK I sent in to you about a month ago these papers, which you had ordered to be printed, but have not heard anything further since.\n\nFraser was asking to-day how the matter stands.\n\nJune 6, 1893,\n\nH. G. B.\n\nI have read them. My feeling is that in the present condition of Japanese politics, and their very uncertain attitude as regards Treaty revision, it is undesirable for us to raise this question, and that we had better wait if we can.\n\nNo. 8.\n\nT. H. S.\n\nMemorandum by Mr. Fraser on the Mutual Surrender of Fugitive Offenders between Great Britain and Japan.\n\nI REGRET to give farther trouble to the Foreign Office on a matter in regard to which much prompt and efficient help has already been afforded me; but I am so strongly impressed by a consciousness of the inconvenience and danger that must result from allowing the question of the mutual surrender of fugitive offenders between Great Britain and Japan to remain indefinitely in the precarious situation to which circumstances have unfortunately relegated it for four years past that I feel compelled to offer some remarks\n\nin answer to Mr. Davidson's latest Minute on this subject, in the hope that I may possibly succeed in dispelling some of the very natural prejudices that have hitherto served to impede its arrangement.\n\nThe whole argument of the Japanese Government in support of their objection to continue to surrender foreign fugitives, charged with offences committed abroad, unconditionally to their respective Consuls, has been for a long time before Her Majesty's Government, and I need not rehearse it; nor do I wish to waste time by repeating any of the considerations in favour of concluding an Extradition Treaty with Japan, in order to meet this difficulty, which have been already stated by me, or by others far more able than myself, in the correspondence or notes upon the case.\n\nMr. Davidson's Minute lays down the following objections to the conclusion of a regular compact:-\n\n1. That the continued existence of Consular jurisdiction in Japan is incompatible with its full recognition as a civilized State;\n\n2. That no compensating advantage seems to be offered to Great Britain in return for her recognition of the principle contended for by the other party; and\n\n3. That we should not be justified in surrendering any fugitives liable to be compelled to kill themselves. A reference of the whole matter to the Law Officers of the Crown or to the Lord Chancellor is also suggested,\n\nIf there are any definite points upon which a high legal opinion ought to be obtained before permission to negotiate can be given, I would venture to beg that they may be stated and submitted, as quickly as possible, to the competent authorities; but I should hesitate to say the same thing in regard to the larger question whether it will be right or wrong to negotiate at all, for that appears to me to be one which the law cannot answer. It is hardly to be doubted that if any high legal authority should be asked whether an Extradition Treaty ought or ought not to be contracted with a State in whose territory Consular jurisdiction is at the same time exercised, his reply will be in the negative. That is the traditional maxim in England, as it also continues to be in Europe generally, though it is no longer very firmly maintained, and an entirely different opinion prevails in America. No doubt a particular case, presenting special features and offering new arguments might possibly be differently answered; but no reply upon the matter, whatever may be its sense or its authority, will be a statement of actual law.\n\nIf the policy of Her Majesty's Government should unfortunately be determined by an opinion in consonance with that which is expressed in Mr. Davidson's Minute, I am bound to say that the result must be an undignified and dangerous deadlock. For this traditional maxim, which has no longer the force of universal admission, affords no answer at all to the Japanese contention. And, speaking always with entire deference, it is impossible not to deprecate most strongly any recommendation that Her Majesty's Government should pass formal pleas by unheeded in order to contest, upon general and doubtful grounds, the claim of an independent State to exercise, within its own territory, an authority, neither unreasonable in theory nor vexatious in practice, which it is evidently able not only to sustain by argument, but also to put in force of its own accord.\n\nThe advantage of effecting a proper arrangement of the matter in dispute seems a sufficient inducement to conclude the proposed Convention. A special compensation would imply substance and value in the claim abandoned. The claim in question is not supported by the text of the Treaty. It rests upon implication. I have already said that I think it will be an advantage, rather than an injury, to Her Majesty's Consuls to relieve them from the duty of pursuing fugitives in a foreign country; and there is no doubt that it will serve to guard us from many and serious risks of collision with the native jurisdiction to which we must remain subject so long as the present state of things is allowed to subsist.\n\nThe only remaining question is that of the fitness of the Japanese Government to perform its proper part of an Extradition Treaty.\n\nThere is no reason now to apprehend that foreigners, who may be arrested in Japan by the Japanese authorities, and kept in custody for delivery to foreign justice, will be subjected to any barbarous usage. On the contrary, such persons have always, within my experience, been treated with care and humanity. It is no new thing for foreigners to be arrested and kept in custody provisionally by the Japanese police, but a common usage and custom for many years past. Nor, as regards the surrender of Japanese fugitives by Great Britain to their natural jurisdiction, can exception be now taken either to the habitual treatment of prisoners in Japan or to the character of the judicial punishments. The objection of \"customary barbarity\" finds no application on either side of the question.\n\nThe Japanese have long since abolished the excessive punishment and abandoned the\n\n[380]\n\nG\n\n325", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-279 - Public Offices - 1897.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 372966, "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": "CO129-293 - Governor Sir Blake - 1899 [8-9]", "page_number": 323, "title": "CO129-293 - Governor Sir Blake - 1899 [8-9]", "content_text": "320/3.\n\n\"\n\n\"\n\nand\n\nofficers\n\nJ\n\nthe inferior administration\n\nare\n\nwilling to serve\n\nunder him, subjecting them only\n\nto supervision\n\n#\n\nthe military authorities\n\nas\n\nlittle\n\nI will\n\nhave\n\nto explain\n\nthe general\n\nthat the laws and customs\n\nof this case\n\nof the inhabitants\n\nJ\n\nthe occupied\n\nterritory should be interfered\n\nas little as possible\n\nhaving attempted\n\nto\n\nthe legal\n\naspect of affairs,\n\nunder\n\nthe superintendence\n\nof civil authorities appointed by him\".\n\nThe\n\nabove quotations from\n\nThe\n\nauthorities\n\nwill\n\nserve to show\n\nmilitary occupation\n\nin\n\nthat\n\nduring\n\nit is quite usual\n\nto have the\n\nJudicial officers of the courts\n\nat their posts\n\nto the best of my ability the questions put by His Excellency\n\n(1)\n\nI do\n\nnot\n\nthink\n\nthat it is\n\nin\n\naccordance\n\nwith\n\nlegal principles for the G.O.C\n\nto compel\n\nevidence\n\n...\n\nCarter Job\n\nregarding\n\nthe\n\n...\n\nbefore him\n\nto give\n\nevidence\n\nwith regard\n\nto which is pending\n\nin\n\nthe courts\n\nI do not\n\nthink that the G.O.C\n\nshould\n\neven if the\n\nevidence\n\nis\n\nrelevant\n\nand\n\nmaterial\n\nin\n\naccordance\n\nwith\n\ncircumstances\n\nto\n\nhear the\n\nJ\n\nlaws unchanged\n\nthe occupying\n\npower exercising supervision\n\nof course, preserving order\n\nMoreover\n\nI feel strongly\n\nthat the Secretary\n\nof State\n\nmust have intended\n\nin\n\nthe particular circumstances\n\nto\n\ncommit\n\nhelp\n\nto\n\nin\n\nsuch\n\n...\n\nHis", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-293 - Governor Sir Blake - 1899 [8-9].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 394699, "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": "CO129-326 - Foreign Office - 1904", "page_number": 36, "title": "CO129-326 - Foreign Office - 1904", "content_text": "exclusive use of which in the United States they are entitled, or which they have adopted and used, or intend to adopt and use as soon as registered, for exclusive use within the Empire of China. To this end the Chinese Government agrees to issue by its proper authorities Proclamations, having the force of law, forbidding all subjects of China from infringing on, imitating, colourably imitating, or knowingly passing off an imitation of trade-marks belonging to citizens of the United States, which shall have been registered by the proper authorities of the United States at such offices as the Chinese Government will establish for such purpose, on payment of a reasonable fee, after due investigation by the Chinese authorities, and in compliance with reasonable Regulations.\n\nARTICLE X.\n\nThe United States' Government allows subjects of China to patent their inventions in the United States and protects them in the use and ownership of such patents. The Government of China now agrees that it will establish a patent office. After this office has been established and special Laws with regard to inventions have been adopted it will thereupon, after the payment of the prescribed fees, issue certificates of protection, valid for a fixed term of years, to citizens of the United States on all their patents issued by the United States, in respect of articles the sale of which is lawful in China, which do not infringe on previous inventions of Chinese subjects, in the same manner as patents are to be issued to subjects of China.\n\nARTICLE XI.\n\nWhereas the Government of the United States undertakes to give the benefits of its Copyright Laws to the citizens of any foreign State which gives to the citizens of the United States the benefits of copyright on an equal basis with its own citizens :-\n\nTherefore, the Government of China, in order to secure such benefits in the United States for its subjects, now agrees to give full protection, in the same way and manner and subject to the same conditions upon which it agrees to protect trade-marks, to all citizens of the United States who are authors, designers, or proprietors of any book, map, print or engraving especially prepared for the use and education of the Chinese people, or translation into Chinese of any book, in the exclusive right to print and sell such book, map, print, engraving or translation in the Empire of China during ten years from the date of registration. With the exception of the books, maps, &c., specified above, which may not be reprinted in the same form, no work shall be entitled to copyright privileges under this Article. It is understood that Chinese subjects shall be at liberty to make, print, and sell original translations into Chinese of any works written or of maps compiled by a citizen of the United States. This Article shall not be held to protect against due process of law any citizen of the United States or Chinese subject who may be author, proprietor, or seller of any publication calculated to injure the well-being of China.\n\nARTICLE XII.\n\nThe Chinese Government, having in 1898 opened the navigable inland waters of the Empire to commerce by all steam-vessels, native or foreign, that may be specially registered for the purpose, for the conveyance of passengers and lawful merchandise,- citizens, firms, and Corporations of the United States may engage in such commerce on equal terms with those granted to subjects of any foreign Power.\n\nIn case either Party hereto considers it advantageous at any time that the Rules and Regulations then in existence for such commerce be altered or amended, the Chinese Government agrees to consider amicably and to adopt such modifications thereof as are found necessary for trade and for the benefit of China.\n\nThe Chinese Government agrees that, upon the exchange of the ratifications of this Treaty, Mukden and Antang, both in the Province of Sheng-king, will be opened by China itself as places of international residence and trade. The selection of suitable localities to be set apart for international use and occupation, and the Regulations for these places set apart for foreign residence and trade, shall be agreed upon by the Governments of the United States and China after consultation together.\n\nPage 7\n\nARTICLE XIII.\n\nChina agrees to take the necessary steps to provide for a uniform national coinage, which shall be legal tender in payment of all duties, taxes, and other obligations throughout the Empire by the citizens of the United States as well as Chinese subjects. It is understood, however, that all customs duties shall continue to be calculated and paid on the basis of the Haikwan tael.\n\nARTICLE XIV.\n\nThe principles of the Christian religion, as professed by the Protestant and Roman Catholic Churches, are recognized as teaching men to do good and to do to others as they would have others do to them. Those who quietly profess and teach these doctrines shall not be harassed or persecuted on account of their faith. Any person, whether citizen of the United States or Chinese convert, who, according to these tenets, peaceably teaches and practises the principles of Christianity, shall in no case be interfered with or molested therefor. No restrictions shall be placed on Chinese joining Christian Churches. Converts and non-converts, being Chinese subjects, shall alike conform to the laws of China, and shall pay due respect to those in authority, living together in peace and amity; and the fact of being converts shall not protect them from the consequences of any offence they may have committed before, or may commit after, their admission into the Church, or exempt them from paying legal taxes levied on Chinese subjects generally, except taxes levied and contributions for the support of religious customs and practices contrary to their faith. Missionaries shall not interfere with the exercise by the native authorities of their jurisdiction over Chinese subjects, nor shall the native authorities make any distinction between converts and non-converts, but shall administer the laws without partiality, so that both classes can live together in peace.\n\nMissionary Societies of the United States shall be permitted to rent and to lease in perpetuity, as the property of such Societies, buildings or lands in all parts of the Empire for missionary purposes, and, after the title-deeds have been found in order and duly stamped by the local authorities, to erect such suitable buildings as may be required for carrying on their good work.\n\nARTICLE XV.\n\nThe Government of China having expressed a strong desire to reform its judicial system and to bring it into accord with that of Western nations, the United States agrees to give every assistance to such reform, and will also be prepared to relinquish extra-territorial rights when satisfied that the state of the Chinese laws, the arrangements for their administration, and other considerations warrant it in so doing.\n\nARTICLE XVI.\n\nThe Government of the United States consents to the prohibition by the Government of China of the importation into China of morphia and of instruments for its injection, excepting morphia and instruments for its injection imported for medical purposes, on payment of Tariff duty, and under Regulations to be framed by China which shall effectually restrict the use of such import to the said purposes. This prohibition shall be uniformly applied to such importation from all countries. The Chinese Government undertakes to adopt at once measures to prevent the manufacture in China of morphia and of instruments for its injection.\n\nARTICLE XVII.\n\nIt is agreed between the High Contracting Parties hereto that all the provisions of the several Treaties between the United States and China which were in force on the 1st day of January, A.D. 1900, are continued in full force and effect except in so far as they are modified by the present Treaty or other Treaties to which the United States is a party.\n\nThe present Treaty shall remain in force for a period of ten years beginning with\n\nPage 34", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-326 - Foreign Office - 1904.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 397808, "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": "CO129-330 - Public Offices - 1905", "page_number": 298, "title": "CO129-330 - Public Offices - 1905", "content_text": "# ARTICLE X.\n\nChina agrees to herself establish a system of uniform national coinage and provide for a uniform national currency which shall be freely used as legal tender in payment of all duties, taxes, and other obligations by Portuguese subjects as well as by Chinese subjects in the Chinese Empire. It is understood, however, that all Customs duties shall continue to be calculated and paid on the basis of the Haikwan tael.\n\n## ARTICLE XI.\n\nThe Government of His Most Faithful Majesty agrees to the prohibition by the Chinese Government of the importation into China of morphia and of instruments for its injection, on condition, however, that the Chinese Government will allow the importation of morphia and of instruments for its injection for medical purposes by Portuguese doctors, chemists, and druggists, on payment of the prescribed duty and under special permit, which will only be granted to an intending importer upon its signing at the Portuguese Consulate a suitable bond undertaking not to sell morphia except in small quantities and on receipt of a requisition signed by a duly qualified foreign medical practitioner.\n\nIf fraud in connection with such importation be discovered by the Customs authorities, the morphia and instruments for its injection will be seized and confiscated, and the importer will be denied the right to import these articles thereafter.\n\n## ARTICLE XII.\n\nThe Chinese Government, recognizing that it is advantageous for the country to develop its mineral resources, and that it is desirable to attract foreign as well as Chinese capital to embark in mining enterprise, agrees to revise its existing mining regulations in such manner, by the selection of those rules in force in other nations which seem applicable to conditions in China, that the revision, while promoting the interests of Chinese subjects and in no way prejudicing the sovereign rights of China, will offer no impediment to the employment of foreign capital, nor place foreign capitalists at a greater disadvantage than they would be under generally accepted foreign regulations, and will permit Portuguese subjects to carry on in Chinese territory mining operations and other necessary business relating thereto provided they comply with the new regulations and conditions which will be imposed by China on its subjects and foreigners alike, relating to the opening of mines, the renting of mineral land, and the payment of royalty, and provided they apply for permits, the provisions of which in regard to necessary business relating to such operations shall be observed. The residence of Portuguese subjects in connection with such mining operations shall be agreed upon between Portugal and China.\n\nAny Mining Concession granted after the publication of such new rules shall be subject to their provisions.\n\n## ARTICLE XIII.\n\nIt being only right that the shareholders of any Joint Stock Company or the partners in any commercial undertaking should all be on a footing of equality as regards division of profits and payment of obligations, according to the partnership Agreement or Memorandum and Articles of Association, the Chinese Government agrees that Chinese subjects joining with Portuguese subjects in the organization of a Joint Stock Company or commercial undertaking, legally constituted, shall be liable to the fulfilment of the obligations imposed by said Agreement or Memorandum and Articles of Association, and that Chinese Courts will enforce fulfilment of such obligations, if a suit to that effect be entered; provided always that their liability shall not be other or greater than that of Portuguese shareholders or partners in the same Company or partnership.\n\nSimilarly, Portuguese subjects who invest their capital in Chinese enterprises shall be bound to fulfil the obligations imposed by the partnership Agreement or Memorandum and Articles of Association, and their liability shall be the same as that of the Chinese subjects engaged in the same undertaking.\n\nBut as existing Treaty stipulations do not permit foreign merchants to reside in the interior of China for the purpose of trade, such Joint Stock Company and commercial undertakings may be established in the interior by Portuguese and Chinese subjects conjointly.\n\n## ARTICLE XIV.\n\nAs Portugal affords protection to trade-marks used by subjects of any other nationality provided alike protection is reciprocated for trade-marks used by Portuguese subjects, China, in order to obtain this protection for its subjects in Portuguese territory, agrees to grant protection to Portuguese trade-marks against unlawful use, falsification, or imitation by Chinese subjects. To this end, the Chinese Government will enact the necessary laws and regulations and will establish Registration offices at which foreign trade-marks may be registered on payment of reasonable fees.\n\nFurther, the Chinese Government agrees that, as soon as a Patent Office has been established and special laws with regard to inventions have been adopted, it will, after payment of the prescribed fees, issue certificates, valid for a fixed term of years, to Portuguese inventors extending to their inventions the same protection as shall be given to Chinese patents in Portugal, provided that such inventions do not infringe on previous inventions by subjects of China.\n\nAny Chinese or Portuguese subject who is the author, proprietor, or seller of any publication injurious to the peace and good government of China shall be dealt with in accordance with the laws of his own country.\n\n## ARTICLE XV.\n\nThe Government of China having expressed a strong desire to reform its judicial system and to bring it into accord with that of Western nations, Portugal agrees to give every assistance to such reform and will also be prepared to relinquish extra-territorial rights when satisfied that the state of the Chinese laws, the arrangements for their administration, and other considerations warrant it in so doing.\n\n## ARTICLE XVI.\n\nThe missionary question in China demands, in the opinion of the Chinese Government, careful consideration, so as to avert in the future the troubles which have occurred in the past. Portugal, as a nation specially interested in the protection of its Catholic Missions in Chinese territory, agrees to join in a Commission to investigate this question and, if possible, to devise means for securing permanent peace between converts and non-converts, should such a Commission be formed by China and the Treaty Powers interested.\n\nNo person, whether Portuguese subject or Chinese convert, who, according to the tenets of Christianity, peaceably teaches or practices the principles of that religion, which aims at teaching men to do good, shall be persecuted or harassed on account of his faith. But converts and non-converts, being alike subjects of China, shall conform to her laws and shall pay due respect to those in authority, living together in peace and amity; and the fact of his being a convert shall protect no one from the consequence of any offence he may have committed before or may commit after his admission into the church or exempt him from paying legal taxes on Chinese subjects generally, except taxes and contributions levied for the support of religious customs and practices contrary to his faith. Missionaries shall not interfere with the exercise by the native authorities of their jurisdiction over Chinese subjects; nor shall the native authorities make any distinction between converts and non-converts, but shall administer the law without partiality so that both classes may live together in peace.\n\nPortuguese Missions shall be permitted to rent and lease in perpetuity, as the property of the Mission, buildings or lands in all parts of the Empire for Mission purposes and, after the title-deeds have been found in order and duly stamped by the local authorities, to erect such suitable buildings as may be required for carrying out their good work.\n\nPage 291 \nPage 5", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-330 - Public Offices - 1905.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 407025, "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": "CO129-337 - Public Offices & Foreign Office - 1906", "page_number": 321, "title": "CO129-337 - Public Offices & Foreign Office - 1906", "content_text": "Telegram \n\n315 \n\nThe clause does not provide that anyone connected with the Company should be convicted of having committed some offence in China in contemplation of the law there in force before the Company is penalized in Hongkong, and objection might also be taken to the provision entrusting the decision whether or not the Company had been guilty of incitement to commit crime to the Executive Government and not to the Judicial Tribunals of the Colony. \n\nSir E. Grey would be glad to learn whether the Earl of Elgin agrees with these observations, and if the legislation suggested in your letter under reply is considered by His Lordship to be the only course that could be taken at Hongkong Sir E. Grey is disposed to think that it would be preferable for the present merely to instruct His Majesty's Consul-General at Hankow to inform the Chinese Authorities that in cases, such as those under consideration, they are at liberty to take proceedings against the offenders in China without risk of interference on the part of His Majesty's Government. \n\nIf", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-337 - Public Offices & Foreign Office - 1906.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 407029, "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": "CO129-337 - Public Offices & Foreign Office - 1906", "page_number": 325, "title": "CO129-337 - Public Offices & Foreign Office - 1906", "content_text": "Ko Kuam\n\nits register\n\nIf it' incites to the\n\nCammissia.\n\nKa\n\ncountry of acts\n\ncomed\n\nfriendly\n\nwhich\n\nIfences against the\n\nПрика\n\nColonial law, whether\n\nadi\n\ncut such acts are\n\nor are not communal\n\noffences\n\nwhere it i\n\nfurther\n\nIn the counts\n\nare committad\n\ncountry\n\nMr.\n\nMr.\n\n4. You suggest\n\nthan \"objection\n\nmight also be taken to\n\nthe provision sutmaking\n\nthe decision whether\n\nor wit the Company had been guilty of incitaments to commit crime to the Excution\n\ngovemment and not to\n\nthe\n\nJudicial\n\nTribunals\n\nof the Colary. This\n\nDRAFT.\n\nMINUTE.\n\nMr. Antrobus.\n\nMr. Cox.\n\nMr. Lucas.\n\nMr. Graham.\n\nSir M. Ommanney.\n\nMr. Churchill\n\nThe Earl of Elgin\n\nWB & L-6000-1-6\n\n5000-1-8\n\nSuggestion, harrover, appears to\n\nb based\n\nA\n\nmisaffs rekersin.\n\n319\n\nIf the proposed claused wne enanted, the Exoutine foramment commed merely take the preliminary\n\nstop of calling upon the Company\n\nCause\n\nto shew\n\nwhy it should\n\nnot b- struck off\n\nthu\n\nRegister: is. The Company Aportunity\n\nwmed ham an\n\nI skewing\n\ncause\n\ninfore the Suprame Court and it would I. for that Court.\n\ndecide whether\n\nsufficient cause\n\nto\n\nhad not hen shown. The judgment in\n\nthe\n\ncame\n\ncomed\n\nHere is the corrected version in HTML format as requested:\n\nKo Kwang\n\nits register\n\nIf it incites to the\n\nCommission.\n\nKa\n\ncountry of acts\n\ncommitted\n\nfriendly\n\nwhich\n\noffences against the\n\n...\n\nColonial law, whether\n\nsuch acts are\n\nor are not communal\n\noffences\n\nwhere it is\n\nfurther\n\nIn the country\n\nare committed\n\ncountry\n\nMr.\n\nMr.\n\n4. You suggest\n\nthat \"objection\n\nmight also be taken to\n\nthe provision submitting\n\nthe decision whether\n\nor not the Company had been guilty of incitements to commit crime to the Executive\n\ngovernment and not to\n\nthe\n\nJudicial\n\nTribunals\n\nof the Colony. This\n\nDRAFT.\n\nMINUTE.\n\nMr. Antrobus.\n\nMr. Cox.\n\nMr. Lucas.\n\nMr. Graham.\n\nSir M. Ommanney.\n\nMr. Churchill\n\nThe Earl of Elgin\n\nWB & L-6000-1-6\n\n5000-1-8\n\nSuggestion, however, appears to\n\nbe based\n\non a\n\nmisapprehension.\n\n319\n\nIf the proposed clause were enacted, the Executive government could merely take the preliminary\n\nstep of calling upon the Company\n\nto shew\n\nwhy it should\n\nnot be struck off\n\nthe\n\nRegister: i.e. The Company would have an\n\nopportunity\n\nof shewing\n\ncause\n\nbefore the Supreme Court and it would be for that Court.\n\nto decide whether\n\nsufficient cause\n\nhad not been shown. The judgment in\n\nthe\n\ncase\n\nwould", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-337 - Public Offices & Foreign Office - 1906.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 411966, "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": "CO129-344 - Public Offices & Foreign Office - 1907", "page_number": 466, "title": "CO129-344 - Public Offices & Foreign Office - 1907", "content_text": "**CONFIDENTIAL**\n\n[21611]\nNo. 1.\n\n404 [July 1.]\n\n## SECTION 1.\n\n26320 Rec.\n\n**(No. 237.)** Sir,\n\nSir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.--(Received July 1.) REG 23 JUL 07\n\nPeking, May 15, 1907.\n\nSince the receipt of your telegram No. 37 of the 6th April I have been waiting for a suitable opportunity of approaching the Wai-wu Pu on the question of the proposed alterations in the Mixed Court amendments.\n\nA few days ago, in the course of a general conversation with Mr. Tong Shoa-yi on the state of things at Shanghae, I touched upon the subject, and pointed out the possibility of future misunderstandings if the Regulations were accepted as they stood, without any proviso being made for the continuance of the existing practice of the Court.\n\nHis Excellency was disposed to make light of the whole question. He had never, he said, been in favour of the amended Rules, which were at best a makeshift arrangement, and would themselves require to be revised in the course of a year or two. What he desired to see in Shanghae was a Court presided over by an officer holding the rank of Judge, and, until that was established, he saw little good in tinkering at the present Regulations, especially as things seemed to be going on smoothly at present.\n\nThe question of female prisoners mentioned in section 1 of the Wai-wu Pu's proposal, forwarded in my despatch `No. 230` of to-day's date, gave me an opportunity of broaching the subject yesterday at the Wai-wu Pu. I explained frankly to the Grand Secretaries Na and Ch'ü the difficulty we experienced in accepting the amendments without some definite recognition of the custom which had grown up in the course of years, and had served to supplement the Regulations in the working of the Court. I instanced especially the custody of the male prisoners, which had been intrusted to the Municipal Council for over thirty years, but which was left in some ambiguity by the amendments.\n\nThe Ministers were guarded in their reply, but made no attempt to question the reasonableness of our point of view. They were evidently apprehensive lest the admission of established procedure instead of exact rules might commit them to an indefinite undertaking, and they asked me to give them a Memorandum embodying the exact wording of the alteration required. They evinced no anxiety for the signature of the Regulations, but, on the other hand, they did not give evidence of any desire to introduce judicial reforms at Shanghae of the nature contemplated by their late colleague, Mr. Tong.\n\nI have, &c.\n\n(Signed) **J. N. JORDAN**\n\n[2570 a-]", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-344 - Public Offices & Foreign Office - 1907.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 415667, "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": "CO129-350 - Public Offices - 1908", "page_number": 362, "title": "CO129-350 - Public Offices - 1908", "content_text": "# PART XII.-Woods and Water-courses\n\n## Section 57. Woods on mine lands\n\nThe cutting down of trees, either to clear roads or to be used for purposes of the mine, is not authorized in the permits issued for prospecting or for mining. If such trees are on Government land, the Deputy in Charge of Mines must be requested to issue a licence to cut them down, and the trees must be paid for at the local market rate. If such trees are on private land, then a value must be arranged with the owner for their purchase, and the consent of the owner obtained before they can be felled, or alternatively the local authority may adjudicate according to law and sanction the action.\n\n## Section 58. Water rights on mine lands\n\nThe waters of all navigable streams, rivers, lakes, and lagoons in any province belong to the State, and are used by the general public. Persons owning mining rights may not attempt unauthorizedly to alter the course of any river or stream on any pretence whatever. Neither may they drain off the upper waters of a stream and deprive the persons living on the lower reaches of their water rights.\n\n# PART XIII.-Foreigners entering into Partnerships (Foreign Shareholders)\n\n## Section 59. Rule as to name, addresses, business, and guarantors of foreign subjects\n\nAll foreigners engaging in mining enterprises who apply for permits under these Regulations must produce a certificate from their Consular authority binding them to adhere strictly to the provisions of these Regulations or Supplementary Regulations, and of all further rules to be made in the future; and the General Bureau of the province concerned shall also satisfy itself that such foreigner has conformed to the requirements of section 5 before a permit can be issued and such foreigner be allowed to work mines under these Regulations. The General Bureau concerned shall also require such foreigner to enter into a proper bond guaranteeing his full observance of these Regulations and Supplementary Regulations. If no infringement whatever of these Regulations is involved, such foreigner may be authorized to start work. Apart from persons engaged in working mines, the Treaty provisions regarding foreigners travelling in the interior requiring passports, and the prohibition of foreigners from leasing land, renting houses, building houses, erecting business premises, or carrying on other forms of business in the interior, will continue in force as before, with no change whatsoever; and even foreigners proceeding into the interior to prospect or to mine must as heretofore be furnished with passports.\n\n## Section 60. Legal proceedings: procedure for foreigners\n\nIn cases where foreigners working mines in the interior of China in partnership with Chinese have lawsuits with Chinese or other foreigners in connection with money matters affecting the private interests of both parties, such suits may be decided in accordance with the laws of China, with impartiality, by the Chinese judicial officer concerned. Cases arising from other causes not yet provided for in Chinese law may be impartially dealt with under the existing laws common to all nations, having due regard to the nature of Chinese laws.\n\n## Section 61. Procedure in dealing with foreigners guilty of criminal offences\n\nIn all cases where foreigners working mines in China commit offences against the criminal law, the Chinese judicial officer concerned may proceed to the spot to hold a preliminary hearing and examine witnesses. If the scene of the crime is remote from a Consular Representative of the nationality concerned, and there is reason to fear the guilty party may abscond, he may be kept temporarily in custody and sent to the nearest Consul, and the usual despatch called for by Treaty will be sent to the Consul concerned, who may pass sentence according to the laws of his own country, without unwarranted interference on the part of Chinese officials. Should the Consul's decision not receive the assent of the Chinese authorities, or satisfy the public opinion, subjects of the nationality concerned may not in future apply again for permits to open mines in that province.\n\n## Section 62. Appeals by foreigners\n\nAny person, no matter of what nationality, who is dissatisfied with any legal decision on a mining question on the part of a Mine Deputy may appeal to the General Bureau of Mines of the province concerned. If he remains dissatisfied, he may appeal again to the Provincial Judge, Governor, or Viceroy, and thence finally to the Board. Diplomatic and Consular Representatives of foreign countries may not intervene in any such cases.\n\nPage 360", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-350 - Public Offices - 1908.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 416639, "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": "CO129-351 - Public Offices - 1908", "page_number": 804, "title": "CO129-351 - Public Offices - 1908", "content_text": "4\n\nKiangsu, with a view to the suppression of piracy. Four shallow-draught gun-boats, eight Chinese gun-boats, and ninety small patrol-boats ('red boats') are to be purchased.\n\n\"Railway for Ili.—The Military Governor has reported in favour of constructing three lines: one from Ti-hua Fu to Ili, one from Ti-hua Fu to Urga, and the third from Ti-hua Fu to Lanchou. He proposes that the gold mines in Ili should be developed with a view to raising capital for the construction of these railways, and that a loan should be made by the Board of Revenue.\"\n\n'Railways in Manchuria.—The Tsi-tsi-har—Hei-lung-chiang Railway is to be commenced next spring, and the Chinese Eastern Railway branch line from Tsi-tsi-har to Old Tsi-tsi-har this summer.\n\n\"Kirin-Ch'ang Ch'un Railway. The survey of this line has been completed, and the estimated cost of construction is 5,500,000 to 5,600,000 dollars. Work will be commenced on the conclusion of the Loan Agreement with Japan.\"\n\nProposed Admiral for Hupei.—The Grand Council contemplate the appointment of an officer as Admiral of Hupei, to be stationed at Hankow and co-operate with the Admiral of the Yang-tsze.\n\n**\n\nProposed new Naval Harbour.—The Viceroy of Canton has forwarded to the Army Board a Report on the harbour of Hsia Yung in Kwangtung, with regard to its suitability as a naval harbour. The question is to be referred to Admiral Sa.\n\nYang Shih Ch'i's Mission.—In a Memorial to the Throne Yang Shih Ch'i gives brief account of his mission to inquire into the condition of Chinese settlers in the Philippines, Siam, Singapore, Java, Annam, and other countries. He describes the climate and productions of the various places visited, and states the number of Chinese settlers in each. He praises the Administration of Singapore and Penang, where the Chinese have attained much wealth and influence, but states that in Java the Chinese, especially those employed in the mines, are badly treated. Everywhere he went he was well received, and found that the Chinese settlers still retained a strong feeling of affection for their native country. He addressed meetings of Chinese merchants in various places, and visited schools and other institutions, to some of which he gave scrolls presented by the Empress Dowager.\n\n\"Steam Navigation on the Upper Yang-tsze.\" (See Sir J. Jordan's despatch No. 157, of the 1st April) In a Memorial the Acting Viceroy of Szechuan reports that he proposes to establish a Company with a capital of 200,000 taels, to run steam-ships on the Upper Yang-tsze between Ichang and Chungking, and later to Suifu and Kiating, one-third of the capital to be subscribed by the Government and two-thirds by the public. An officer sent to investigate the matter has reported that by blowing up some of the obstructions in the river and using windlasses at some of the more dangerous rapids, navigation by steam vessels would be quite feasible. Three small steamers are to be purchased abroad, and the service will afterwards be extended.\n\n46\n\nFires in Peking.—It is reported that Na Tung has given special orders to the police with reference to the fires which have been very numerous recently. He states that, although the frequency of these fires is chiefly to be attributed to the exceptional dryness of the atmosphere, there is reason to suspect that some have been the work of incendiaries who wished to take advantage of the fires to commit thefts. He directs the police to exert themselves to bring all such criminals to justice.\n\n\"The Ching Hua Shih Pao reports that there was a fire at the Wai-wu Pu on the 4th, but that it was promptly extinguished.\"\n\nThe Ching Hua Shih Pao also reports that there are at present a large number of revolutionaries in Peking who have come here from Japan. The Board of the Interior are reported to have given orders for the arrest of fifty-five of these persons.\n\n\"Naval Harbour in Hainan.—The Viceroy at Canton has reported in favour of making a naval harbour at Yu Lin, in Hainan, and states that the water supply and climate are good. He recommends the construction of a railway for the purpose of transporting troops and supplies there when necessary.\n\nChengting-Te Chou Railway.—The Government have decided to proceed with the construction of this railway at once. Engineers have been sent by the Peking-Hankow Railway Company to survey the line, and work will be commenced next month. The construction will be under the direction of the French.\n\n\"Tsitsihar-Angangchi Railway.—A Chinese Company with a capital of 320,000 taels has been formed for the construction of this short line (a distance of 50 li). The contract for building the line has been given to a German firm, Messrs. Telge and Schroeter. Work will be commenced in June.\n\n**\n\n5\n\n'Proposed Appointment of Judicial Officials.—The provincial authorities of Kwangtung, Yunnan, and Kweichow proposed some time ago that judicial officers (Pu Huo Ts'ai P'an) should be appointed in the interior with a view to preparing for the withdrawal of the right of exterritoriality at present enjoyed by foreigners. The Government, with the assistance of Wai-wu Pu and Hsien Cheng Kuan, are engaged in drawing up Regulations for the purpose.\n\n\"Proposed Railways in the North-west.—The Shen-Kan Viceroy has recommended the construction of two lines, one from Kalgan to Urga, a distance of 2,450 li, the other from Sui-yuan along the north bank of the Yellow River to Ning-hsia; thence to Liang-Chou, Hami, Ti-hua, and Ili, a distance of 8,000 li. These railways could not be constructed as a commercial enterprise, but would be of great importance for military purposes.\n\nMining in Shansi.—Since buying out the Peking Syndicate, the Taiyuan Fu Mining Company have obtained permission to raise capital to the amount of 5,000,000 taels to develop the mines, and the capital has already been over-subscribed, only Chinese being permitted to purchase shares. A Chinese mining engineer has been engaged at a salary of 600 taels a-month, machinery has been ordered from Europe, and 1,000,000 taels of the capital is to be devoted to the establishment of an iron foundry.\n\nThe \"Universal Gazette,\" in an article on the danger of ignorance of the limits of foreign relations, proceeds to argue that, while the limitation of India's export of opium is a diplomatic question, China's monopoly of sale of the prepared drug is an internal Government step with which England has no concern, since the nature of the drug has been altered, and so the Treaty with England does not apply. At present the shops charge at will, irrespective of the duty and li-kin, and England has nothing to say. Similarly, Chinese prohibition of rice export does not affect cakes and biscuits made of it. Moreover, a rise in price is not a customs duty; the aliens might as well claim to interfere with the proposed stamp duties, which will be charged on native and foreign goods alike.\n\nThe distinction between diplomatic and non-diplomatic matters is quite easy. Another instance, the Soo-Hang-Ning Railway. The Tsung-li Yamên's agreement with the British Envoy might be brought within the scope of diplomacy, but, as regards construction, the publication of the Railway Regulations took that out of the Wai-wu Pu's sphere, and the Wai-wu Pu should have told Sir J. Jordan to bid his nationals petition the Board of Communications direct, and have declined to interfere, quoting as precedents the American exclusion, which its State Department insisted pertained solely to the Labour Department; the Manchurian troops question, which Russia said pertained to her War Office; the Touquin Consuls, which the French Foreign Office put on its Colonial Department, and all the other precedents of recent years. Unfortunately, the Board waited till it got a bad name by resisting popular opinion before it got the Board of Communications to make the loan,\n\nThen trade-marks: all China promised was rules like other Powers, yet foreigners are allowed to interfere with their tenor. And the Mining Rules, which were drafted with the aid of foreign advisers, were still less open to foreign revision.\n\nIf attention is paid to their protests on more and more questions, China's independence will be lost through Chinese heedlessness.\n\nThe trouble has come from the fact that the Wai-wu Pu is not bound, like other posts, to report to the Throne and quote precedents. It has assumed unlimited powers, and, with a Prince and Grand Councillors at its head, ignores all control, and, without knowing it, is a danger to the State. Could folly go further?\n\nTo recover from the consequences will take many years' struggles and constant supervision, which latter is beyond the Throne, the Council and the Ministers, and to be found only in an elected Parliament. This is the only means to safety.\n\nThe \"Eastern Times\" of the 25th March professes to give the gist of a secret report by the Chinese Delegates to The Hague Conference on the European position. He describes the Peace Conference as a covert struggle for each Power's private objects. England dislikes Germany, which, since its victory over France, has increased in military pride above not only England, but the whole world, and is now developing a navy. So Russia fell in with England's request, in order, it is said, to safeguard her Asiatic possessions after Japan's victory over Russia. So Russia and Japan nearly came to rupture over the naval question, who five years ago started the limitation of armaments proposal, now refused to sign such an Agreement. The Conference reminds him of Sung's abortive assembly of the States (in B.C. 545), when the Ch'u men wore armour under their clothes.\n\n797", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-351 - Public Offices - 1908.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 417214, "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": "CO129-352 - Public Offices - 1908", "page_number": 540, "title": "CO129-352 - Public Offices - 1908", "content_text": "5\n\nprotect vessels engaged in the transportation of troops, and that the said flag shall not be illegally used to enable the enemy's ships, with their cargoes, to enter the ports of the High Contracting Parties concerned. Vessels offending against the above provisions shall be subject to confiscation by the Government offended.\n\nARTICLE 8.\n\nThe ships of war of either of the High Contracting Parties, provided previous notice has been given, shall be admitted into the ports of the other where such vessels of other nations are allowed to enter, and shall receive the same treatment as ships of war of the most favoured nation. They shall receive from the local authorities every facility for the purchase of coal and provisions, for procuring water, and, if occasion requires, for the making of repairs.\n\nShips of war shall be exempt from the payment of all duties on arrival and departure.\n\nThe Commanders of ships of war shall hold intercourse with the superior officers of ports on terms of equality.\n\nARTICLE 9.\n\nSwedish subjects may travel to all parts of the interior of China under passports issued by Swedish Consuls and countersigned by the local authorities. These passports, if demanded, must be produced for examination in the localities passed through. If the passports be not irregular the bearers will be allowed to proceed, and they shall be at liberty to hire persons, animals, carts or vessels for their own conveyance or for the carriage of their personal effects or merchandize. If the Swedish subjects be without passports or if they commit any offence against the law, they shall be handed over to the nearest Consul for punishment; but they shall only be subject to necessary restraint and in no case to ill-usage. Such passports shall remain in force for a period of twelve months from the date of issue. Swedish subjects travelling in the interior without passports shall be liable to a fine not exceeding 300 taels. They may, however, go without passports on excursions from any of the ports open to trade, to a distance not exceeding 100 Chinese li, and for a period not exceeding five days. The provisions of this Article do not apply to crews of ships.\n\nChinese subjects shall be at liberty to travel throughout the territory of Sweden, provided that they conduct themselves peaceably, and do not violate the laws and regulations of the country.\n\nARTICLE 10.\n\nThe duly authorized Swedish authorities shall hear and decide all cases brought against Swedish subjects by Swedish subjects, or by the subjects or citizens of any other foreign Power, without the intervention of the Chinese authorities.\n\nHowever, as China is now engaged in reforming her judicial system, it is hereby agreed that, as soon as all other Treaty Powers have agreed to relinquish their extra-territorial rights, Sweden will also be prepared to do so.\n\nCharges or complaints of a civil nature brought by the subjects of either of the High Contracting Parties against the subjects of the other shall be heard and decided impartially by the authorities who have jurisdiction over the defendants, in accordance with the procedure observed in similar charges or complaints brought by the subjects of the most favoured nation.\n\nSubjects of either of the High Contracting Parties, charged with the commission of any crimes or offences, shall be tried by the authorities who have jurisdiction over the accused with the procedure observed in similar cases of the most favoured nation, and, if found guilty, shall be punished in accordance with the laws of their own country.\n\nARTICLE 11.\n\nIf Swedish subjects in China, who have committed offences or have failed to discharge debts and fraudulently abscond in order to evade a summons or warrant of arrest, should flee to the interior of China or take refuge in houses occupied by Chinese subjects or on board ships, the Chinese authorities shall, at the request of the Swedish Consul, deliver them to the Swedish authorities.\n\nIn like manner, if Chinese subjects in China, who have committed offences or have failed to discharge debts and fraudulently abscond, should take refuge in houses occupied by Swedish subjects in China, or on board Swedish ships in Chinese waters, they shall be delivered up at the request of the Chinese authorities made to the Swedish authorities.\n\nBoth offenders shall in no case be shielded or withheld from arrest by either of the High Contracting Parties.\n\nARTICLE 12.\n\nThe principles of the Christian religion, as professed by the Protestant and Roman Catholic churches, are recognized as teaching men to do good and to do to others as they would have others do to them. Those who quietly profess and teach these doctrines shall not be harassed or persecuted on account of their faith. Any person, whether Swedish subject or Chinese convert, who, according to these tenets, peaceably teaches and practises the principles of Christianity shall in no case be interfered with or molested therefor. [No restrictions shall be placed on Chinese joining Christian churches. Converts and non-converts, being Chinese subjects, shall alike conform to the laws of China, and living together in peace and amity, shall pay respect to those in authority. The fact of being a convert shall not protect a Chinese subject from the consequence of any offence he may have committed before or may commit after his admission into the Church, or exempt him from paying legal taxes levied on Chinese subjects generally except taxes and contributions levied for the support of religious customs and practices contrary to their faith. Missionaries shall not interfere with the exercise by the native authorities of their jurisdiction over Chinese subjects, nor shall the native authorities make any distinction between converts and non-converts, but shall administer the laws without partiality so that both classes may live together in peace.\n\nSwedish missionary societies shall be permitted to rent and to lease in perpetuity, as the property of such societies, buildings, or lands in all parts of the Empire for missionary purposes, and, after the title-deeds have been found in order and duly stamped by the local authorities, to erect such suitable buildings as may be required for carrying on their good work.\n\nARTICLE 13.\n\nIt is hereby declared that the provisions of the Treaty now existing between Sweden and China, in so far as they are not modified by stipulations of the present Treaty, shall continue in full force, and it is further expressly stipulated that the Governments, officers and subjects of both of the High Contracting Parties shall be allowed free and full participation in all privileges, immunities, and advantages which have been or may hereafter be granted by either of the High Contracting Parties to the Governments, officers, and subjects of any other Treaty Powers in regard to commerce, navigation, shipping, industries, or property.\n\nThe High Contracting Parties reserve to themselves the right to conclude Agreements regarding frontier trade with neighbouring countries, and it is understood that, in case either of the High Contracting Parties should hereafter grant to any other nation advantages subject to special conditions, the other High Contracting Parties shall enjoy such advantages only provided that it complies with the conditions imposed therein or their equivalent, to be mutually agreed upon.\n\nARTICLE 14.\n\nThe Arrangements, Rules, and Regulations subsisting between and binding both China and the Treaty Powers, so far as they are applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this Treaty, shall be binding on both of the High Contracting Parties.\n\nARTICLE 15.\n\nIt is agreed that either of the High Contracting Parties may demand a revision of the Articles of this Treaty at the end of ten years from the date of the exchange of the ratifications, but if no such demand for the revision is expressed on either side within six months after the end of the first ten years then the Treaty in its present form shall remain in force for ten years more, reckoned from the end of the preceding ten years, and so it shall be at the end of each successive period of ten years.\n\n537\n\nPage 540\n\nPage 541", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-352 - Public Offices - 1908.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 428832, "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": "CO129-372 - Public Offices - 1910", "page_number": 173, "title": "CO129-372 - Public Offices - 1910", "content_text": "authorities, in the compilation of their annual statement of revenue and expenditure. The rules provide for a statement of accounts from every office in the Empire, and a comparative table has in every case to be submitted showing the corresponding receipts and expenditure in the preceding year.\n\nPrince Tsai Tao.\n\nPrince Tsai T'ao left Peking on the 20th March at 6 A.M. on his military mission to Japan, America, and Europe. He was accompanied by a numerous staff. A large number of officials attended to see him off, and the Japanese, American, and British representatives were also present. The expenses of the Prince's trip are estimated by one paper at 250,000 taels.\n\nThibet.\n\nThe press has followed the doings of the Chinese expedition into Thibet with great interest. One paper has several times reported that it is intended to convert Thibet into a province, owing to the fact that the influence of the Dalai Lama is still very real.\n\nThe same paper states that the flight of the Dalai Lama resulted in telegrams to the Central Government from each of the three high Chinese authorities in Thibet, which were full of mutual recriminations. The Government poured oil on the troubled waters by soothing replies. Another paper announces the recall of the Assistant Amban Wen Tsung-yao, and states that the title of amban is to be changed, while in future the temporal government is to be entirely separated from the spiritual.\n\nThe press generally is inclined to cavil at the action of the British and Russian Ministers in sending notes to the Wai-wu Fu on the Thibetan question, and one paper published inaccurate résumés of the notes sent in.\n\nA rumour has been published to the effect that Tong Shao-Yi is to be appointed to settle Thibetan affairs.\n\nChinese Penal Code.\n\nThe \"Peking Daily News\" draws attention to the approaching issue of the new Penal Code, and points out that by a happy coincidence it is exactly 100 years since the promulgation of the Code Napoléon.\n\nThe first step taken in the way of judicial reform was the abolition of deportation in 1903, and later on in 1905 the punishment of \"ling chi,\" or slicing to pieces, was abolished, while relations were no longer to be made liable for offences committed by one of their body, and fining was substituted for the use of the bamboo. Further, in 1905 a high commission was appointed composed of Wu Ting-fan and Sheng Chia-pen to prepare a Penal Code. At the same time, codification in other branches of the law was pushed forward, and with the assistance of many law students educated abroad, and of a distinguished jurist from Japan, Dr. Okada, the first draft of the Penal Code was completed two years ago. Opinions of the different provincial authorities thereon were invited and considered, with the result that the final revision was completed at the end of last year. The revised draft was then referred to the Constitutional Government Committee, which body is expected to report thereon within a year.\n\nThere are several points in the Penal Code which are worth noticing. Firstly, there is no special classification of offences as in most of the older codes. Every offence is simply called a crime. Secondly, the new code discards the punishments formerly prevailing in China, i.e., decapitation, transportation, and the use of the bamboo. As substitutes, hanging, imprisonment for life, or for a term and fine, are introduced, so as to bring the Chinese judicial system into line with that of the most civilised country. Other punishments are deprivation of civil and political rights and the forfeiture of property. Thirdly, the system of conditional sentence is an innovation in the Chinese code. Under this the judge will have the power to suspend a sentence of imprisonment for less than three years being carried out, on the condition that the offender shall not commit another offence during a period of from three to five years. In the treatment of juvenile offenders the Penal Code is exceedingly liberal. It is provided that a child under 15 who commits a crime will not be punished for his misdeed, but the judge may send him to a reformatory school.\n\nIn order to bring the Chinese judicial system abreast with the time, there are incorporated with the new Penal Code quite a number of offences which were formerly unknown in China. Among these may be mentioned offences relating to elections, offences relating to foreign diplomats, offences relating to telegraphs and railways, offences relating to opium and lotteries, and such offences as counterfeiting coins and paper money, forgery, and violation of weight and measurement regulations.\n\nThe new Penal Code consists of 409 short articles, and is divided into two general parts, dealing with general principles and specific offences respectively.\n\nTich Liang.\n\nOn the 17th March a decree was issued allowing Tich Liang, the Minister of War, to resign on account of ill-health, and Yin Ch'ang, at present Minister to Germany, was appointed to succeed him. It has been known for some time that the Throne was not satisfied with the conduct of affairs in the Board of War owing to the friction which existed between Tich Liang and Prince Tsai T'ao, the latter of whom is the head of the newly-formed general staff. Yin Ch'ang has the reputation of being experienced in military matters, and is said to be greatly in favour of training the Chinese army on the German model.\n\nMiscellaneous.\n\nTwo Frenchmen, formerly employed on the Luhan Railway, have applied to the magistrate of Ta Hsing Hsien for permission to be naturalised as Chinese subjects. Their petition was referred to the Wai-wu Pu, who, being satisfied of their eligibility, have issued orders to the Shuntien Prefect to take the necessary steps to that end under the new Naturalisation Laws.\n\nOne paper complains that there have been numerous abuses in the present election of members to the Senate, especially among the members of the Board of Education. Voting tickets have been monopolised by a few individuals, and undue influence has been used over voters, either by bribery or force, while the nomination of candidates has depended on the amount of \"squeeze\" given.\n\n171", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-372 - Public Offices - 1910.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 439593, "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": "CO129-394 - Governor Sir May & Public Offices - 1912 [12]", "page_number": 85, "title": "CO129-394 - Governor Sir May & Public Offices - 1912 [12]", "content_text": "With visits the ree, and to She g tice an ad hu 9 Collies indicating, the analogy of the Rit (Damage) Act 1886 for the results flowing from the atment.\n\nof the given offen but the analogy between the offence of boycotting and the offence of Mark, the gat vieturer (not) is open to argument.\n\nThe section seems to me of those whics can only be applied to frivolous guists fried by its summit of it adminitiation why in cases of \"a-um\" under subasally regant of Excerptions under subin (5).\n\nand the provisions HA.18/1 There is no analogy between boycotting onlot, ucioust as to a special rate commit circustances to is lobe paid be allowed carrier buy be enforced.\n\nIf compensation it is a matter for the whole community I don't understand why the Pocistics Law cannot be used to break up this boycott.\n\nof the leaders do are not-B. subjects, the Banishurnet Law gives ample powers, and cannot think why they have not been used.\n\nThe special Nade Provisions are most objectionable But the most omniscient and judicial minded of Governors should not be trusted with such powers.\n\nIt would mean that every person who was not a favourite with the police would have to pay few cants Refended in polus oil wouts be quite enough to ensure Exception.\n\n83 The ordinance is not and which can be allowed to remain on the Statute Book The cooled should be harpected.\n\nThe Gov. should be instructed by cable to that effect and that if he has taken any steps to infance the special rate provisions be should letuumade them at once.\n\n13 1441-19 Lagree with Sir J. Anderson.\n\nIt is quite indefensible & a very serious step to have taken without the previous consent 831.1.13.\n\nPentirely agrees froceeding. 8. May Sin d. balance! a most extraordinary must have quite lost his *31.1.13", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-394 - Governor Sir May & Public Offices - 1912 [12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 444304, "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": 301, "title": "CO129-403 - Governor Sir May Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1913 [8-10]", "content_text": "## Enclosure\n\nQ. Has there been any Act of Congress incorporating the Philippine Islands into the United States?\n\nA. There has been no Act giving the Philippines a general status other than that of an unorganised territory except, in my opinion, that certain Acts which extend certain laws would apply to foreign dependencies and to foreign dependencies alone. I am of opinion that it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the Philippine Islands are part of the United States and that they are also within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.\n\nQ. Has there been any Act of Congress definitely making the Philippine Islands a part of the United States?\n\nA. There has, with certain limitations.\n\nQ. What are those limitations?\n\nA. The Sovereignty of the United States is exercised over territory which has various relations to the Sovereignty. Among the classes of territory covered by this Sovereignty are the States themselves which have a direct voice in the Government of themselves and of the territories of the United States. Another class are the organized territories which have no direct voice in the Government of the country as a whole and have a limited voice in their own Government. Both classes of territories are governed directly or indirectly by the Congress of the United States. Congress extends to these territories such political powers and such laws of the United States as it wishes to extend. The full and absolute sovereignty over these territories lies in Congress.\n\nThe Act of 1870 is singularly ill-arranged. It nowhere enacts in terms that the persons charged with certain offences may be surrendered. This, which is the leading object of the Act, is effected in the following roundabout way. Section 6 enacts that \"where this Act applies in the case of any foreign State, every Fugitive Criminal of that State who is in England shall be liable to be apprehended and surrendered.\" Section 26 defines a \"fugitive criminal\" to mean a person accused of an \"extradition crime,\" and is also one of the crimes to be found in the Extradition Convention signed at Washington on the 12th July, 1889. The documents put in were Exhibits 2 and 3. Exhibit 2 was the requisition. Exhibit 3 consisted of 8 documents and were marked 3 to 3h.\n\nMr. Islands in the same way. The Government, and a third class is that of the unorganized territories which have no voice in the Central Government and have a very limited voice (if any) in their own Government.\n\nEvidence was put forward by the defence relating to the question of citizenship, naturalization, the wording of certain treaties and the construction to be placed thereon and other questions. Having regard to my views as to the construction to be placed on the Act, I am of opinion that these questions are not relevant to the issue before the Court. My decision with regard to Point 1 is therefore against the defendant.\n\nI shall now deal with the second and third points. The second point was that documents were not properly authenticated and the third point was that there was no evidence of an extradition crime. These two points were taken together. Mr. Brutton admitted that if the documents were properly authenticated there was on the face of such documents a sufficient prima facie case made out against the defendant with respect to the crime of abduction.\n\nThe documents put in were Exhibits 2 and 3. Exhibit 2 was a requisition by the Consul-General of the United States in Hongkong upon the Hongkong Government for the Extradition of the defendant to the Philippine Islands. Documents 3a to 3h were a copy of a record of conviction of the defendant and order of arrest.\n\nExhibit 3a purports to be a copy of the judgment of conviction of the defendant of the crime of abduction in the Court of First Instance for the Eleventh Judicial District of the Philippine Islands at Cebu on the 21st December, 1906. Exhibit 3b purports to be a copy of the final judgment of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands. Exhibit 3c purports to be a copy of the sentence of the said Supreme Court upon the said last-named judgment given December 3rd, 1907. Exhibit 3d purports to be a certificate by the Chief Justice of the said Supreme Court under the seal of the said Court and over the signature of the Chief Justice of the said Court. Exhibit 3e purports to be a certificate by the Executive Secretary for the Philippine Islands under the Great Seal of the Philippine Islands and over the signature of Frank W. Carpenter, Executive Secretary of the Philippine Islands. Exhibit 3f purports to be an order of arrest issued by the Judge of the Court of First Instance for the district aforesaid for the apprehension of the defendant dated January 17th, 1913, signed by Adolph Wislizenus, Judge of the said district, and under the seal of the said Court. Exhibit 3g purports to be a return by the Sheriff of the Province of Cebu upon the said order of arrest sworn to by the Sheriff on the 17th day of January, 1913, before the said Judge under the seal of the said Court.\n\nThe Certificate to Exhibit 3a is not signed. It is a copy. There is no seal on 3a, and 3b is not signed nor is it sealed. The rest of the documents are signed and sealed. Exhibit 3d, which is the certificate of the Chief Justice, is as follows:— \n\n\"I, Cayetano S. Arellano, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, perfect, correct and complete copy of the sentence by the Court of First Instance...\"\n\nI am satisfied on the evidence which has been adduced by the prosecution that the Philippine Islands are an integral part of the United States. Mr. Anderson also gave evidence as follows:-\"I gave evidence in the Police Court (in the former proceedings) that the Philippine Islands was not a Colony nor dependency, but that it was a constituent part of the United States of America for Extradition purposes.\"\n\nThe requisition in this case was therefore rightly made by him as a Consul-General of the United States.\n\nI would also call attention to Section X. of the Ashburton Treaty 1842, which is as follows:—\"X. It is agreed that Her Britannic Majesty and the United States shall upon mutual requisitions by them respectively made deliver up to Justice all persons who being charged with the crime of murder or assault with intent to commit murder or piracy or arson or robbery or forgery or utterance of forged papers committed within the jurisdiction of either shall seek any asylum or shall be found upon the territories of the other.\"", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-403 - Governor Sir May Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1913 [8-10].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 444305, "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": 302, "title": "CO129-403 - Governor Sir May Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1913 [8-10]", "content_text": "## Supreme Court, Philippine Islands\n\n**Exhibit 3**\n\nUnited States of America, Government of the Philippine Islands.\n\nSection 6 of the Habeas Corpus Act (31 Car, 2, C2) is as follows:-\n\n\"And for the prevention of unjust vexation by reiterated commitments for the same offence; be it enacted by the authority aforesaid that no person or persons which shall be delivered or set at large upon any Habeas Corpus shall at any time hereafter be again imprisoned or committed for the same offence by any person or persons whatsoever, other than by the legal order and process of such Court wherein he or they shall be bound by recognizance to appear or other Court having jurisdiction of the cause.\"\n\nI was referred by Mr. Brutton to the following head note in the case of Regina v. Governor of Brixton Prison, ex parte Stallmann. The head note is as follows:-\n\n\"In the case aforesaid that no person or persons which a convicted fugitive the conviction shall be delivered or set at large upon any Habeas Corpus shall at any time hereafter be again imprisoned or committed for the same offence by any person or persons whatsoever... it is essential that each sheet of the record should be certified; unless this is done the Court has no evidence of the crime having been committed and cannot know whether the essential condition that the act must also be a crime by the law of the Colony is fulfilled.\"\n\nIn the body of the judgment, Sir Francis Piggott expresses himself thus:-\n\n\"The record starts with a sealed document signed by the Governor-General of the Philippines and ends with a sealed certificate of the Chief Justice, but in between there are a number of loose sheets which are not certified and consequently sheets might have been extracted and extraneous sheets might have been introduced.\"\n\nIt is most important that every sheet should be certified.\n\nI shall now refer to Section 15, Sub-section 3 of the Act of 1870. This sub-section reads as follows:-\n\n\"If the certificate of the judicial document stating the fact of conviction purports to be certified by a judge, magistrate or officer of the Foreign State where the conviction took place.\"\n\nI am of opinion that the certificate of the Chief Justice of the Philippine Islands (Exhibit 3) is a sufficient certificate within the meaning of this sub-section.\n\nAfter Sub-section 3, Section 15 goes on as follows:-\n\n\"And if in every case the warrants, depositions, statements, copies, certificates and judicial documents (as the case may be) are authenticated by the oath of some witness.\"\n\nMr. Welsh was examined in chief. He was asked:-\n\n\"Have you examined 3a, 3b and 3c with the official Records?\" He gave the answer:-\n\n\"I have examined them and they are true copies of such Record.\"\n\nI was also referred to the case of Kwok A Sing, L.R. 5 P.C. 179. In Kwok A Sing's case, the Privy Council held that the first warrant of committal was illegal and beyond the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. Mellish L.J. on page 210 states as follows:-\n\n\"On the whole, therefore, they are of opinion that the warrant by which the Magistrate authorized the Governor to deliver Kwok A Sing to the Chinese Authorities was illegal.\"\n\nBy Section 10 of the Extradition Act 1870, the Police Magistrate has authority to commit a foreign criminal if the foreign warrant authorizing his arrest is duly authenticated: and by Section 26, warrant is defined in the case of any Foreign State to include any judicial document authorizing the arrest of the person accused of crime.\n\nMaxwell on Statute, on page 120, deals with this subject thus:-\n\n\"So, the 6th Section of the Habeas Corpus Act which for the prevention of unjust vexation by reiterated commitments for the same offence except by the legal order and process of such Court wherein he is bound by recognizance to appear or other Court having jurisdiction in the cause would not purport to extend to a case when the discharge was made on the ground that the commitment was made without jurisdiction by the Judge.\"\n\nMaxwell also gives the example of Lord Brougham's Act, 14 and 15 Vict., C 99, which requires that a foreign judgment itself must be sealed, was passed in 1851. The Extradition Act (33 and 34 Vict., C 52), which does not require that a foreign judgment itself should be sealed, was passed in 1870, nineteen years after the passing of Lord Brougham's Act.\n\n## Certificate\n\nI, Frank W. Carpenter, Executive Secretary for the Philippine Islands, do hereby certify that Cayetano S. Arellano, whose name appears signed to the foregoing certificate made by him, is Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands duly appointed, qualified, commissioned and acting as such; that the said Supreme Court is a Court of Record: that all of his official acts are entitled to full faith and credit; that his foregoing certificate is in due form, that his signature thereto is genuine and the seal attached thereto is the seal of the said Court.\n\nGiven under my hand and under the great seal of the Government of the Philippine Islands at the City of Manila this twenty-eighth day of May, A.D. nineteen hundred and thirteen.\n\n(Signed) **FRANK W. CARPENTER**, \nExecutive Secretary for the Philippine Islands.\n\n## Supreme Court, Philippine Islands\n\n(Signed) **C. S. ARELLANO**, \nChief Justice.\n\n**Exhibit 3** is as follows:-\n\n| Description | Details |\n| --- | --- |\n| Document Start | Signed by the Governor-General of the Philippines |\n| Document End | Sealed certificate of the Chief Justice |\n| Sheets in Between | Number of loose sheets, not certified |\n\nThe said red silk tape is carried from Exhibit 3d to Exhibit 3e and a gold seal is placed over the red silk tape in Exhibit 3. On this gold seal is embossed the Great Seal of the Philippine Islands. Exhibit 3d and 3e are also joined together at the top by means of a piece of red silk tape.\n\nI would especially call attention to the words \"same offence.\" These words are more stringent than the rule laid down with respect to the common law plea of autrefois acquit, which is that the acquittal was on the merits.\n\nI am therefore of opinion that it is not necessary that such documents should be sealed provided that the mandate and order of the said Supreme Court directing the execution of the said decree of the Court have been complied with.\n\nI find that the charges made against the prisoner and the decision of the Criminal Court of first instance, being cause No. 3,774 on the docket of the Supreme Court on Appeal, that proceedings should be taken against Vicente Sotto, have duly authenticated within the meaning of Section 15 of the Extradition Act 1870.\n\nAnd I also find that Vicente Sotto has not filed any bond nor undertaking in the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands to stay the execution of the said sentence, and such sentence is in full force and effect.\n\nMy finding with respect to points 2 and 3 is therefore against the defendant.\n\nI shall now deal with the 4th point.\n\nMr. Justice Manisty stated in his judgment: \"It is, in my opinion, an original document, not a copy.\"\n\nThe fourth point was that by Section 8 of the Habeas Corpus Act, the matter was res judicata.\n\nIn witness whereof, I hereunto sign my name and affix the seal of the Court this 5th day of December, nineteen hundred and twelve.\n\n(Signed) **C. S. ARELLANO**, \nChief Justice. \nSupreme Court, Philippine Islands.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-403 - Governor Sir May Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1913 [8-10].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 444309, "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": 306, "title": "CO129-403 - Governor Sir May Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1913 [8-10]", "content_text": "# 304\n\nThe law is clear that it is the duty of the Magistrate in the case of a convicted person whose extradition is being sought to commit that person for extradition provided that he finds that the obligations of the extradition law have been complied with and to leave legal questions such as a plea of res judicata to be raised by the person on an application for Habeas Corpus; in other words, I think that Mr. Hazeland has gone outside the limits of his jurisdiction in deciding the point at all, in addition to having decided the point wrongly.\n\n4. The question, of course, at once arises as to whether this Government wishes that any further steps should be taken in the matter; I have no doubt that the United States Authorities will press this Government to take any further steps which may be at all possible to try and obtain the surrender of this man. I have already expressed my views generally at some length in this file, but I feel that in view of the last Despatch of the Secretary of State, it is only right that we should endeavour to carry out our Treaty obligations to the utmost of our power. But very difficult questions arise as to whether it is possible to do anything more and as to what means exist for reviewing the Magistrate's decision. Now there are three processes which naturally occur to a Lawyer:\n\n| Process |\n| --- |\n| (a) Appeal |\n| (b) Mandamus |\n| (c) Fresh proceedings before another Magistrate |\n\nand I will deal with these three processes separately.\n\nWith regard to (a), I am satisfied myself that there is no appeal.\n\nWith regard to (b), there is a preliminary difficulty, which however is not unsurmountable, in the Government attempting to mandamus its own officer; but the position of a Judicial officer is not the same as that of an Administrative or Executive officer, and there does not seem to me to be any great objection to the Crown applying for a Mandamus against one of its own Magistrates, who however presumably will have to be separately...", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-403 - Governor Sir May Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1913 [8-10].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 447576, "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": "CO129-410 - Governor Sir May - 1914 [3-5]", "page_number": 118, "title": "CO129-410 - Governor Sir May - 1914 [3-5]", "content_text": "TO accompany No. I.\n\nHon. C.S.\n\nThe hearing before the Magistrate has just concluded, and his reserved decision is expected this week. If he decides to commit, I understand that the defence will apply for a writ of Habeas Corpus, and they have expressed their intention, if the Supreme Court is against them, of applying to the Privy Council also.\n\n2. I suppose that His Majesty's Minister should be asked to communicate the above to the Chinese Government, and should also be asked to explain to the Chinese Government shortly what our procedure is, namely, that a fugitive criminal whose surrender is demanded must first be brought before a Magistrate, who hears the evidence offered tending to show the fugitive's guilt, and who, if such evidence is sufficient, makes an order committing the fugitive to gaol to await the order of the Governor; that upon the expiration of 15 days from such order of the Magistrate the Governor may hand over the fugitive, provided that the latter has not in the meantime applied to the Supreme Court for a writ of Habeas Corpus, a form of procedure which acts to some extent as an appeal from the Magistrate's decision; and that if the fugitive does apply to the Supreme Court for a writ of Habeas Corpus, he cannot be surrendered until the Supreme Court has given a decision upholding the Magistrate's order. From this the Chinese Government will see that, while in some States extradition is an executive act, in the British dominions it is partly an executive and partly a judicial act, and that so long as the matter is before the Courts, the functions of the executive are practically in abeyance, no interference by the executive with the judiciary in the exercise of their functions being permissible. H. V. Minister might also perhaps refer to Ordinance No. 7 of 1889 of the Ordinances of Hongkong as regulating the procedure here.\n\n(Ed.) J. H. Kemp,\n\nCrown Solicitor.\n\n5.1.14.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-410 - Governor Sir May - 1914 [3-5].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 500966, "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": "CO129-489N - Governor Sir Stubbs & Sir Clementi - 1925 [8-12]", "page_number": 1, "title": "CO129-489N - Governor Sir Stubbs & Sir Clementi - 1925 [8-12]", "content_text": "Pearl Theatre \n\n(Opposite DUTCH FOLLY, THE BUND.) \n\nPROGRAMME FOR \n\nTuesday to Thursday Aug: 11 to 13 1925 At 1.30, 6.45 and 9.15 P.M. \n\nMARION DAVIES \n\n→ STE -- \n\n\"The Restless Sex\" \n\n7 KEELS \n\n--AND- \n\nEDNA MARIAN \n\n-IN- \n\n\"Her Daily Dozen\" \n\n(Comedy in 2 parts) \n\nThe Sun Roof Garden. \n\nCinematograph, Different kinds of Chinese & Foreign plays. Amusements are shown Day and Night. \n\nAdmittance 35 Cents. \n\nExtra charges for Tom, refreshments, Talossops Observation, \n\nExhibitions of Transtigaration. Special Vinoma \n\nRear Seats \n\nnt \n\nTHE CANTON GAZETTE, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 13, 1925. \n\nSoviet Mercantile Fleet \n\nThe \n\n\"Sovtorgflot\" \n\n\"MONGUGA\" $74 \"PAMIAT LENINA\" \n\nwill leave Canton for Swatow and Shanghai and Vladivostok on or about 18th August. \n\nFor further particulars apply to \n\nPetroleum Office of Trade Mission of U.S.S.R. in China at Canton \n\n(Agents of Soviet Mercantile Fleet \"Berfo glat\") \n\n2nd floor, Central Bank of China Buildings, The Bund. \n\n行銀央中 \n\nTHE CENTRAL BANK OF CHINA \n\nEstablished by Government Mandate of 7th August, 1921 \n\nOfficial Government Depositary \n\nGENERAL BANKING BUSINESS TRANSACTED \n\nTelephone: Central 199, 444, 777. \n\nTelegraph Address: \"CENTRAL\" \n\nTSE VUNG SOONG \n\nChief Manager \n\n東 \n\nThe Bank of East Asia, Ltd. \n\n(CANTON BRANCH) \n\nSAPSAM HONG STREET, CANTON. \n\nHead Office-HONGKONG. \n\nCable Address---**FASTA BANK” \n\nSHAMKEN, \n\nTelephone No.-1876 West. \n\nAuthorized Capital $10,000,000.00: $5,000,000.00 \n\nPaid-up \n\nReserve Fund \n\nBRANCHES & AGENCIES throughout the World. \n\nEvery kind of banking facilities:- \n\nGranting loans on approved securities. \n\nSelling drafts and buying bills on Foreign agencies, \n\nTHE ORIENTAL HOTEL \n\nAND \n\nRESTAURANT \n\nTHE BUND \n\nFACING THE PEARL RIVER \n\nWith the Whole View of Canton City \n\nFrom the Roof Garden \n\nModern Accommodation and Comfortable Equipments \n\nHot and Cold Baths \n\nServe best Foreign and Chinese Meals \n\nWe prepare party dinners \n\nThe Sincere Co., Ltd. \n\nUniversal Providers. \n\nThe Bund, Canton \n\nNew Arrivals Of Tinned Goods And Silks \n\nOur Own Manufacturers:-- \n\nAERATED WATERS, PERFUME, GLASS WARE, METAL WARE, RATTAN WARE, FURNITURE, &C, SOAP, \n\nOUR ROOF-GARDEN:- \n\nCinema and a Variety of Chinese & Foreign Plays \n\nAdult 35 Cents, \n\nAre shown DAY & NIGHT.-- Admission \n\nSavings Department. Concessions to small depositors with current accounts interest \n\nTHE SUN CINEMA. \n\nPROGRAMME FOR \n\nAugust 12th to 0th, 1925 \n\nTRIANGLE PLAYS \n\nPRESENTS \n\nDOROTHY DALTON \n\n \n\nThe Far Eastern Trust and \n\nSavings Bank, Ltd. \n\n34, SECOND MALOO \n\nWEST BUND, CANTON. \n\nHONAM-SUB \n\nCABLE ADDRESS \"BANKTRUST\" \n\nBRANCH \n\nTA KEE TOW \n\nAll descriptions of Banking Business transacted, \n\nInterest allowed on Current and Savings Accounts and \n\nLoans granted on approved securities. \n\nIN \n\nFIXED DEPOSITS. \n\n\"The Dark Road” \n\nIN FIVE BIG REELS \n\n$1,80 \n\nVarious Comedies \n\n \n\n \n\nTHE \n\nChina Development \n\nCommercial \n\n& Savings Bank, Ltd. \n\nTelone (9-tra] 792 \n\nAditing, West Bugend B'. \n\nCroston \n\nTHE SUN Co., Ltd. \n\nUNIVERSAL PROVIDERS \n\nWEST BUND; & WAI OI STREET, OLD CITY. CANTON, \n\nfe in to join advantage to visit our Wholesale and Retail Departments. All kinds of China silk piece goods, boots and shoes, hats, outfitting, etc. \n\nPROFESSIONAL QUALITY \n\n7 out of 10 cases of \n\nHEADACHE \n\ncan be cured from eyestrain. If you were a victim of this trouble, you should have your eyes examined soon. \n\nDO IT AT THE SUN CO. \n\nDr. K. K. Yang, who takes charge of our Optical Department, \n\nhas specialized on Ophthalmology and Optometry. \n\nJET \n\nSuits for our third floor, well-stocked for \n\nDR. KÜNK, \n\nA modern Banking and up-to-date... All manner of interest rates allowed for all kinds of deposits. \n\nLoans granted on approved securities \n\nBANK OF CANTON LIMITED, \n\nHEAD OFFICE, HONGKONG, \n\nINTEREST ON FIXED OR WITH \n\nCURRENT ACCOUNTS \n\nFor 12 Months 5% per annum, \n\nFor 6 Months 4 per annum, \n\nFor 3 Months & per annum on the daily credit \n\nbalance of over $100.00, \n\nOn demand \n\n2% per annum \n\nChief Manager \n\nLABOR AND PEASANT MOVEMENT. \n\nTHE CANTON \n\nGAZETTE \n\nWEDNESDAY, AUGUST 12, 1925. \n\nCommerce Leaders On Trade Permits. \n\n(Continued from Page 1) \n\nPeanut Oil Shipments \n\nDiplomatic Commission's Report On Shanghai \n\nShootings \n\nNo Enthusiasm For Judicial Inquiry--Chinese Rights Recovery \n\nMovement. \n\nPeasants Movement. With The Strikers. \n\n„Outing to the best product of elibe th Workers infinging the vari joik being insul? cirat far the preda Government Devises Means To \n\nMeeting Of Peasants Union OffThe \n\nSow bad but all good to be the people, to saul rely Aid The Workers On Strike. 1st Division Of Pun Yu District. \n\ntransporth a sie abject to ajan skipun ka the hum A present the movement for the inspection, and this shows that the Taingear wind beachwang Bia the (YBOX QUE YEASANT CORRESPONDENT) \n\nand Nationalist Revolution \n\nthe authorities \n\not oflented buke massage, shipping bus bort tilf After the establishment of the Nations emancipation has \n\nuniformily is the internal affairs, tied up, and regular supplies of oil only the faulted brake from Shock Of French Minister's Split. Diplomatie turpe have ap \n\nPeasants Union of the 1st division \n\nprogressive, Rod towardɛ the actio Mr. Long Ton Hing said the Geotou lava imen impossible Paris sud Teky, is generally) \n\nfelt tore that thpt of the parently reanvered from the sbank Pon Yo! Fongebuan) f \n\nof the rains wochers on ekrike, Commit-ones Buty land taken up tuns causing a ries in the murkor \n\nConniving to Shanghai should be of the Fench Minister'e rezigna District great soccer das fillorect \n\nthe Governmel has led its be the maler with His strikers, adde \n\nThe Cute Balta Unkel liebed bioause it participeter, in att pablico give them advice and estistuuon, the Butte Cermitte died rent Mr. \n\nSo for very little Tadication for I was told to day that the vacancy thas create on the Uɔra- activities. This is the third soul goes the Atrike a garrist into Lai Torg Fo to the Come Shaughst kan spesially pirates; meeting for skation of Commit fot, the Gavermout has red Department to deal conjully wished a forge consignawel of pear on glee by the Legatione contain would most probanly as Members. Everyone attended the} \n\ndevire no efforte to \n\nen forit. so said that this in simply full from Tsingtao, for shipment turning its esetents, but the Chinese led in the course of a few days. \n\nIt is nateraled that the moment are thornghiy convinced that it) After the recting with interess. \n\nmaintaining the livelihood of the matter the part of the Pickete Caston to meri leoni nada. misssacre of the bite Persillut. Me-trikers, and \n\nA gram bas bra rectly contains wittesuls cond-matia of the Walebicoupe agres to limit the ital diturions to the Shangbai 1 taken further sed it can be iti u the met Lum Pub-abus, the prepa krew steps to plan for this organizing held by the rite it from Shanghai stating that the Shanghai. In the encantas, affair and disttangle it entirely well that in neder to gata fedemtion of a fre Labor Employment Boday. \n\nwas shipped to Caxton per 8.8 therefore, the excuse of the Legather fauce, the L-gations will \n\nHua Tan1 \" Yang\" to tins that pubility would be a fester inte formal negations. they should be crited. \n\nTwo Problems, \n\ndesirable në the prcent time would \n\nThere does aut seam to be ruah \n\narrive within a few days. It is an \n\nipated that the price of oil on the \n\nt seem to be tenable, for the bope that this will secar for some \n\nreport on the progress sẽ chlá i \n\nwill drup \n\nBurns:iudings of the Commiration canuettes how ver, for pessimistio views \n\nUnion during the past half year. \n\nhe said Agency, and will be \n\nJone of them saying to-day, \"Every \n\nof esucer ions to the Chinese side of thing is right up is the st.\" \n\nthe \n\nasket \n\nMr. Wis Chung Tong said that \n\ndisending the question Specia! Porrults, there are two lar] (2) Reading a report from the viraduced to work at the taaleries porte: & niste which require dia. cedially the oil spot w salt. contain anything like the number \n\nare the rais sung the Diplomate, Provincial Prasanta Bulou giving of the Qovernment, Organized curiou pervious to other points;- \n\nbio of gel permits, hai 1.vfile care silaged in Chines circles. The Judicial Inquiry particulare of the Sbike and Pelili | Bodies or private onneeros. \n\nnal conditions, \n\nSOLUTIONS: \n\n(1) A 1 I'm perleliete Sad Erbed sny tinta to \n\noverthrew our revisionary \n\nmeet, we take it that this preval. ni \n\nwamacre is no opportunity for \n\nnational revelation to come lo touch with the Imperialists, \n\nReports are to be made by a \n\n(1) I The Hous of Special Permits \n\nFly \n\nwiched to know what slegs are to be \n\nthe factorior together with the \n\nHere shali-hed? of names of Camic workers, and & \n\nStill the authorities are \n\ny \n\nI have tried to obtain official \n\ntaker in case of an IGLESINE colnetant, even to discus3 be repropilen on the Shanghai suggestion \n\n(3) be in revani juchfying And detention of gcle after the they say that it is tharugbly of judicial inquiry me a prelunicary moso to Diplomatic nogatíations. at tinn of Sucis! Permits, and understand abrand bath \n\nthe question skoold content and in spirit. One fois! be British Legation refuse to cros heronghi sussidered and prep tuld me to-day that the Commission rant on this or any other anggen ensures adopted in safeguard the cted an the eyes and curs of the tine and other Legation are not nthusiastic, the g-coral opinion Diplomatic Corps and that their findings were intended merely being that the bat way out of the \n\nMr. Chow Tie bong said that \n\nbeats for the Tegations in their present imposan is to concentrate on wh the Chinese the task of commiting the Chinata \n\n\"It's setrue tovernment to a conferences \n\nfuture. \n\native-vuot \n\nto be cent mostly to the shove the fame of puniat Purists, but mentioned raployment Agency. | there permite abon'd be perfine₫ 1 giving paritenters of the retire-goode which necessarily seqnies \n\nIt should be sorate and appointments of workers.aponia! permission. The workers who are now set of pheduled as to what sort of good#] () As the Torpaciaklata do do! | employtcut will shen he introduced are specially emitted and what] like na to have any protest in Recording to their order of registra-sort of goods can be transported thought glat per missing is zorgulations \n\nfreely. There are send goods. thesarily quired for \n\ngads and native tate, ned that \"ggest that the report evatuise \n\ned to ma sa. Who will you appiat parahase of which in weessary le \n\nwholesale condemnation,\" he said. \n\nWhen asked the nature of the judgest Who in to suggest a meet demands, but which are for special permission should only he list of goods to he boycotsed \n\nobtained when its cecessarily peers autarquently extended judicisi inquiry? Whose respost- the Commission, this official replied bility is F It was felt that the regaired for the gonde. \n\nwwa entirety outside the Mr. Lee The Ting said that he \n\nthat they wers iustimated to tey to \n\nmatter \n\nGnd basia of onderstanding with nommatenae of the Diplomatin Corps quite agreed with the option the Chinese delegates. This agro Chinese \"Obstacles\" Mr. Le Long Yo \n\nthat the qualienment, bait it been sirived at, wond \n\n(2) The atrikers are not striving for their own privilegra but striving \n\nfor national freedom \n\nChild 15 Cents, \n\nHOTEL \"ASIA.\" \n\nWEST BUND, CANTON. \n\n亞洲大酒店 \n\n廣州市西 \n\nDOW \n\n49 \n\nBeveral questions were propound- \n\nBuoi pinion is that, as long \n\nthe Shanghai Comantasion' \n\net e they axercise their finsreini \n\ntun, to work at these fmolorice influence to purabase tools such as \n\nwhich will be only allowed to tak Chang Teo-lin, He Yao-nan, ou the workere from the Emply Chen Chiong-ming, Tavg Punjab ment Agency first before they are and other anti-revolutionarists to allowed to employ outridle workers. \n\nMr. Chiu Riang Yo said that опросе аль \n\nBerides the above Agency, Lonsidera at the isang of each Workers Reception House will alan Special \"ermits and he put into be retablished to norept the workers forer, for it is within the power of \n\nunemployed. Their \n\ndaily the authorities to dreide whether of adapting proper meastires to if have been used by the Diplomatie) \n\ngoard the future stoukk he Carpa to gain a complete ander (4) Strike is the only wesJOG \n\nexpenses will ho fixed ecording to Special permission is to be given o \n\nby naslona to try to persuade the that we have to fight against the \n\ntheir profusion while \n\nthe But, bat en har part we should considered, but that a list of the standing with the Chinese Cover report serasina a pstery, it would echinit the case to Daperiliis, therefore if our strike responelbility of using the fandsgather to publie epioion sequods abcold be made unt first 1nment. He wisked to emphasize that: \n\nthe much discussed document could blese to complication anj that: is successful the Government is also so reset those ux penina will be whotter suob Squaint Permita should \n\nnot be made public for the reasor judicial inquiry, they being fully ancetesful but if is fails the Gov shouldered by both the Government be enforced or nut- \n\nHodded at preclamation should be issued for that it containert confidential vinced that the report contatos an indiętoget of Shanghai. In information which was intended for theen streamatseen the ChiansO thero 6:0 gonta wbich requiro \n\nMr. Chiu Kiang Ya said that re the sole use of the Diplomata in Jonger exist. \n\nA Worker Training Rehoal will special permistion and these are (a) Wo pensaate living i \n\nhe instituted within the aboy goods belarging to the nations with tentatives should be nominated their negotiations with the Chines glowy villeges provive ile dame Reption Hopen lo benel the whieh perange of Huseietconnee Jay this Chimeran Deperiment in Govornicent. \n\nthe vare Delicate Position \n\nMerever it has always bron dea cacemic and political oppressional workers \n\ntid comparatively stan has been difend, and it is \n\n[vidared in Peking that the Chinese from the Io perinata as the people valushie Parsing in the the art nucess to spunify in detail ni \n\nLater meeting of the maider themselves the judger on of all claeren presise. Therefore agro-ding to their usual profession. these grode. \n\nDiplomatie Corps 1983 held the Shanghai affair. They always morning. No statement refer to the British as the culprits efter was Kiven out, A British and will not approach the problem report Legation officiel saying that the to the alightest spirit of vara pre- \n\nposition we so delicate that nothing mias \n\ntriñera. \n\nwe must also do cur bit to help tho The neurre in this soholi will b \n\nfor grjually inorvused in faturs \n\nELECTION. Mr. Wong Hung Ploihe aake of promoting the estu \n\nwas cleabed as the Priest, and \n\nof trokers, \n\nvold \n\nLeonjunction with \n\n：： Khambers of Commerça \n\nPestigate and to decide what sui \n\nwill Jequire Spei \n\nin \n\nE \n\nthut \n\nMr Chow Chin Sheen Fald that of goods In considers the enfora meal of the Permissing, \n\n» Special Permite quite thorough investigation a Impossible breaust of the \n\nMr. Puo Kam Hong said that event of Specis! Perrite sheold \n\nVice President. Mesers Yi Ram Cheaper Fire-wood For difficulty and tesuits in derling \n\nMr. Ta Yang was elected as the \n\nHot, So Ku and Chong Xu more \n\n堤 \n\ncheted sa members of the milte and Massrs Lon Sek And Wong Yon, Tow Pa elected as judge \n\nL'o- Mus wore \n\nDESTRUCTION OF PEASANTS UNION AT HAI LU FONG. \n\nLEADING HOTEL IN SOUTH CHINA \n\nFirst Class Accommodation, Hot and Cold Water Service Throughout, Electric Lights, Fans and Elevators. Perfect Sanitary Arrangements. Spien- did Dining Room, Meals a la Carte, Excel'ent Cuisine. Public Bar. First Class Billiard Room. \n\nRoof Gardue \n\nBanquets, \n\nSplendid Views of Canton City and Pearl River Hairdressing Saloon. Moderate Rates. \n\nUNDER THE MANAGEMENT OF \n\nTHE SUN CO, LTJ, CANTON. \n\nHIGH-GRADE \n\nJob Printing \n\nEXECUTED WITH \n\nPROMPTITUDE \n\nAND \n\nACCURACY \n\nAT LOW COST \n\nTHE CANTON GAZETTE \n\nPRINTERS & PUBLISHERS \n\nCanton. \n\nwith such permits and on secourt: \n\nof the time for shipping the goods being a shot. \n\nskuld be made. \n\nFald \n\nuld say: \"Now that the first port is unfavourabls, you want 'armiker liquiry.\" \n\nKuomintang Leadership. \n\ncould be issued in the Press. Thie attigial \n\nthat your \n\nThe underlying fant of the pre- permitted reappondent might b ho temporarily auspended and that \n\nthat the Carpa End madent situation is that the Shang- the Cinmei Dë Depurament bebeen idle in three lost for weeke, affair been completely in istenes on Scoing that firemund is a daily \n\nMr. Le Tie Ping euid that, in requ zied to form in juration but that the usture of the diecur near sha inged by \n\n{with Commercial circles, theBious must remain sceret peril aceh recovery of perige rights. The cessity for the people, the Gay \n\nbie opiblor, the eve of Special \n\ntime on it was opportune to make slagan. \"Abolish Unequal Treating\" lab ur glass Me, an \"Association of ennen? gave special orders to the \n\nby the l'ems for the \n\nany aument to the waiting warld.sted to ba mnapilize} parpore of deltae simics at tho Esat, West \n\nFrons efter gaatters Fundor Rusintang, bat sowadays oven Meericua in miting the importation of foreign investigation for the parate of \n\nluvestigating into the question. jstand thas the Waichinupa has at the most gamervative Chinese, wha and Forth Rivera veling that they should preveu gods that the products of our \n\nyot acerpted tire Legational thru months ago would have con The Chairman, having laid the exhortion of the easiled prut clius | country \n\nongiortation \n\nflow battled befa any ditens wild mees are reacting themselves the side of the rights rayhty sins take pluca ch other matters, made This is the argument Low bez movement.--Peking Correspondent \n\ncarried on by theu Juiling, the of the N. C. Dally News \n\nfor \n\nA telegram from the Peasants fees on all junts carrying fir foreign eruntries are not fer, and hove proprenis before the membe- iw point beat the Shanghai case-moedach rail as th Faik \n\nUnica of Hai Fung, \n\nrends: \"A \n\nveer 500 \n\nhan:1 Roldiers \n\nthat be thinks that free transporta- \n\nfor the \n\nFangwood Ea Cartan, sed should give \n\nwas Amendment tebel them every proficios Instead. \n\nThese orders hayo bee heya ton of goods from one place to ing commented by Lo Yet \n\nYoung by the various defrate armice, and another in an ew couster should passed by the musetingi- Tange Chok Moy, Yoce Viu Chong in the past few days the varius a permitted, but the distinction Pass Resolution \n\nChore, are fireword junka at 660 different was kind of grods should be stated. Seng Bad Chung being assisted by Cheng Bon Nemecticus have been able to arrive at \n\nIn added thek tice su and other uti-resolutiousrists and Canton in perfect safety without! \n\nthe nemaity of paying the prate Capitalists and nailed to one group. They are being careled by the re- \n\nb- General Trb. Their le sia \n\nle to rain the pensant of Flai anri \n\ntion fera en-erate? \n\nKeon the extention of Pea mach \n\nprein Permits may perhaps \n\npexible with regard to trade with \n\n“That be spesixi permits will be \n\nquired the goods which are Dok; the gods of the romy vations. The The va i us Chemibres \n\n& reign compris, but it is absolute for Commerce for \n\nng there junk by the lunal hundits | ly impossible d'or interne! trade, \n\nLu Fang. The Prasanta Uniors bse not \n\nof Hai Lu Fang and Chin Tongeving \n\nنا \n\nbeen a heavy \n\nbefor \n\ntho protection of the \n\nwere destroyed by the rehols, and armies: hesos the great deep in the the Preddent of the Executive price of fireword on the inseket. \n\nJu edditio: 47 the Committed Mr. Sit Aam Yito wai \n\nkidnapped. \n\nAs the \n\nthey \n\nbruke inty \n\nMr. \n\nChoy Tel \n\nCommittee of that division and \n\n+x-Presilent of the Executive Traine, amely:- \n\nCheck on \"Enemy\" Goods. \n\nAmmittor \n\nHow British Oppress the \n\nChinese Seamen in \n\nHongkong. \n\ncurtain \n\nChinese TOS\", \n\nif \n\nstrikera in \n\nCanton wre facing starvation and that they อวน!! strike Bod return to Canton they would meet the same fate. \n\nThe seamos replied that they \n\nconjointly with the Authorities, to avsetigate to what ark of godle named Chan bau, who had been wall strika even though they \n\narrasted and detained by Hongkong Government for seizetize) \n\nMr. Pan Kam Blong said that | og enemy auflon gunde.\" \n\nWork \n\nthered to ₫ nth. \n\nthe particular reason of iasing The suggestion of Mr. sheve such profel Permits to do Kok Sbing to winate the Proud was recently expelled from \n\nbaye veranen of financial commction; \n\nChinese \n\nseamen \n\nAgain Ho Baiskwong threstened \n\n•hem by saying that if they do ant \n\nbe \n\nĮsomply with his order, they would \n\nhe \n\nsubject to arresŠ. The seamen \n\na that they would prefer to be \n\nlime large shipments of fireworks! the house of also arrived from the North River with certain foreige patiune. ad Bid-st of the four Chamb-tot Hongkong is connection with \n\nverzner only applies Commerce as representatives to see strike, has come up in Cantos and the Beation by the Ynot-Han Railway that the Low, \n\nto genie \n\nof the Britial and the cho Commissioner of Commerce related how the British Imperialists imprisoned than to continue thir \n\nwith fe added that and \n\nin employ. consult \n\ntim oppresg Japanese patious. \n\nHearing this, its halfcaste the Commerce Department should ainut the procedure, was passed Hongkong. \n\nby \n\nand Messrs the meeting, be reqeated to prepare a list of \n\nWhoo the bitsking\" re-ompradora, He Sawong, beame ordered #greatly enraged and gnode of these nations with signs Chow Tin Hong of the Cneral turned to Hangkang from Tinstein the Bettiah palice to \n\norented great disturbanes and \n\nthe first! tulsbery. loners of division received the same treat ment. This band of rebels compos ed of over 2000 had arrived at Lui Wo Cheng cu the 6th inetant, \n\ndare not disarm that Turing Those few days the Generals of Chen Oblog-ming were trying to Sorada \n\nHN and and rent their \n\nMonday Ear cara \n\nTuesday six cars \n\nWednesday four cars \n\nThursday night on \n\n(including night train) \n\nFriday eleven CATA \n\n(including night traio) \n\nSaturday four ears \n\nto \n\nfor identification and mark out Chamber of Commeros, Liang-toug \n\nSunday four cars \n\nEach of the above cara contained \n\nabout ten thousad catties of fire-goods \n\nof Commerce \n\nAriest and \n\nThe seamen were sentenced to \n\nthe which are far que daily to the City Chamber, Ya Hu-om the 7th alt, the British, realis ake them to the Harbour Master quirements and of which purchase of the Union of Merebant, anding that the Chinees we mew on for trial. is necessary, and then for the trova Trung Shau-dek of the Cooperative board the said vessel u uld join the \n\nware wriks, ordered the reveal to be two weeks' imprisonment if they portation of snch goods Special Chamber \n\nbat taninateri « representatives to monerd at Leesamman. for frure still insisted to strike. The seamen Permite will be innuit, \n\nThen they were permasted refused and so wera imprisoned. not belonging to ourg with Mr. Liang Tan-hing,shere. \n\nWhen the term of imprisonment prices of which have enemy natius should not require representatives of the Commerce sot to join the strike by one of the \n\nDepartment, \n\nGate | Louis of British Imperialism. Com-woe sarved, they were expelled from overtbrow the therefore greatly dropped day by such permite. \n\npradoro Ito Sui-kwang who threakon Hongkong and come up to Cantou Mr. Ire Long Yu said that he missioner Soneg. Our day, as there is already so over. Government, \n\nstriker, adding that is weekend. The meeting ended at 5.30 p.m. the has miroudly studied the question of \n\nspies to Hai Lu Fong to raise up wood, the \n\nap \n\nNationalist \n\nto \n\nGovernment must take note of this, stock \n\nand \n\n200", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-489N - Governor Sir Stubbs & Sir Clementi - 1925 [8-12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 508147, "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": "CO129-501-3 Chinese situation- Protection of British subjects of Chinese race 23-10-1926 - 21-12-1927", "page_number": 115, "title": "CO129-501-3 Chinese situation- Protection of British subjects of Chinese race 23-10-1926 - 21-12-1927", "content_text": "## Page 115\n\n\n## Page 116\n\n2 \n\nstatistics which were laid before the Extra-territoriality Commission, together with a supplementary volume of Chinese legislation. I am forwarding to the Foreign Office such English and French texts as are included in the above, and I enclose herein a tabular statement prepared by Mr. Garstin.* based on the Ministry of Justice's list and on the volumes referred to, in which the laws, regulations, &c., are grouped with appropriate references under four heads :-- \n\n(1.) Laws, &c., which appear suitable for consideration in connection with the third of the proposals communicated by this Legation to the Wai-chiao Pu on the 28th January last. \n\n(2.) Judicial precedents. \n\n(3.) Draft laws. \n\n(4.) Legislation which does not seem suitable for application in British courts in China. \n\n6. The Ministry of Justice's list is confined to laws, &c., which can properly be classed as civil, commercial or criminal. It does not include legislation relating to the administration of the Government, organisation of the judiciary and similar administrative matters, as such legislation could not be applied in British courts. On the other hand, the Ministry have included legislation, such as the Civil Procedure Regulations, which does not come within the scope of the British proposals. \n\n7. It will be seen that in many cases, mostly legislation of a less important character, no translation is available. In answer to an enquiry on the subject, the Chinese commissioners informed Mr. Garstin that they would be glad, as occasion arose, to give such assistance as might be possible, but that the work of translating all the laws and regulations was too big an undertaking for the Chinese authorities. They suggested that even without official translations the application of the laws in British courts might be possible. Translation could be supplied from unofficial sources, and in any specific case, if the meaning of a provision in one of the laws was doubtful, expert evidence could be called to explain it. This suggestion seems hardly feasible, and it is to be hoped that when the draft Civil and Commercial Codes now in course of preparation are promulgated by the Chinese Government they will publish translations in English or French, as they have already done in two cases, the \"Draft Civil Code, General Principles,\" and the \"Draft Law of Negotiable Instruments.\" \n\n8. Mr. Garstin will in all probability leave Peking for home some time in May, and the legal advisers of the Foreign Office will no doubt desire that he should be available for consultation, unless it is proposed to suspend all action until the position in China becomes clearer, at any rate as regards the application of one code of laws throughout China. \n\nI have, &c. \n\nSir. \n\n## Enclosure in No. 1\n\nMr. Garstin to Sir M. Lampson. \n\nMILES LAMPSON. \n\nApril 13, 1927. \n\nI HAVE the honour to submit herewith a report on the conversations which I held on the 22nd, 27th and 30th ultimo and 4th and 9th instant with the Chinese commissioners appointed by the Chinese Government to examine with myself such of the proposals communicated on the 28th January last by His Majesty's Legation to the Wai-chiao Pu as relate to the application of Chinese law in British courts in China. \n\n2. The first proposal presented little difficulty. I informed the Chinese representatives that I thought that the modern Chinese law courts referred to were those listed on pp. 118-121 of the Report of the Commission of Extra-territoriality in China (\"China No. 3, 1926\"), and that the provisional court at Shanghai would not be included. \n\n2A. It seems that the recommendation of the commission (report, p. 95) that foreign lawyers should be permitted to represent clients, both foreign and Chinese, in all mixed cases will not be adopted or even considered by the Chinese Government in favour of the nationals of any Power until that Power has renounced the practice of extra-territoriality in China. The \"Provisional Regulations relating to the Practice of Lawyers who are Citizens of Countries having no Extra-territorial Jurisdiction in China,\" were promulgated in 1920. Such lawyers, if they have obtained lawyers' certificates from the Ministry of Justice in China, may, on being registered with a high court and enrolled as members of a Chinese Bar Association, practise before the Chinese courts, but only in litigation concerning their own nationals, and in otherwise acting on behalf of such nationals. \n\n3. With regard to the second proposal, relating to the Chinese Law of Nationality, the Chinese representatives submitted a formula for overcoming the difficulties arising from the dual nationality of persons of Chinese origin born within the British dominions. This is based partly on the Sino-Dutch arrangement of 1911, and partly on a suggestion that was mooted during the drafting of the Extra-territoriality Commission's Report. Its aim is to secure for such persons, when they visit their country of origin for a short time, immunity from the jurisdiction of Chinese courts, but to make it obligatory on them, if they wish such immunity to continue for longer than six months, to obtain from the Chinese Ministry of the Interior a certificate of denationalisation, in accordance with the Revised Chinese Law of Nationality. The provisions of that law on this subject are contained in Chapter III, articles 12 to 16. Permission to denationalise himself will not be granted by the Ministry of the Interior to an applicant unless- \n\n| Condition | Description |\n| --- | --- |\n| (1.) | He is over 20 years of age. |\n| (2.) | He has legal capacity, as defined by Chinese law. |\n| (3) | Having attained military age he is exempt from military service and has not yet served in the army. |\n| (4.) | He is not in the active service of the army. |\n| (5.) | He is not a civil or military officer, or a member of a legislative assembly, or a functionary of a local administration. |\n\nThere are other cases in which a certificate will be refused, such as those where the applicant is a suspect or a criminal, a defendant in a civil case, an undischarged bankrupt or a defaulter in the payment of taxes; but generally, I was given to understand, it is unlikely that difficulties will be raised in the case of a bona fide applicant. \n\n4. The third proposal raised at once the question whether there is any legislation at present in China which can fairly be said to come within its terms. It is a question to which the Chinese representatives could give no satisfactory answer. In view of the findings of the Extra-territoriality Commission on this subject (paragraph 223 of their report) and of the fact that political conditions in China have not improved since that report was written, it may be suspected that the true answer is not encouraging. Nevertheless, as we want to have on record duly certified copies and translations of the laws which the Chinese Government claim come within the terms of the proposal, I asked whether these could be filed. The Chinese delegates promised that a list of the laws in force in China would be furnished to His Majesty's Legation by the Ministry of Justice, and that copies of bound volumes containing the Chinese texts and copies of such translations as had been made and printed, as submitted to the Extra-territoriality Commission, would be forthcoming; but they seemed unwilling to commit themselves to any undertaking to supply duly authenticated translations. \n\n5. The meaning of certain phrases used in the third proposal was examined by the Chinese delegates. Thus, it was urged that 'modern Chinese Civil and Commercial Codes\" should be deemed to include \n\n| Inclusion | Description |\n| --- | --- |\n| (1.) | The interpretations placed by the Chinese Supreme Court on the laws; |\n| (2.) | The general legal principles applied by the court; |\n| (3.) | Well-established customs and usages. |\n\nThe modern Chinese courts have been in the habit of seeking in the draft codes prepared by the Chinese Government the general principles which they are authorised to apply. The practice has now received the sanction of the Government. A presidential mandate issued on the 18th November, 1926, authorises the courts to consult for their guidance and to apply as occasion demands the following draft codes :-- \n\n| Draft Code | Description |\n| --- | --- |\n| (1.) | Civil Code, general principles; |\n| (2.) | The law relating to obligations; |\n| (3.) | Commercial Law; |\n| (4.) | The Law of Negotiable Instruments; |\n| (5.) | Maritime Law; |\n| (6.) | The Bankruptcy Law. |", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-501-3 Chinese situation- Protection of British subjects of Chinese race 23-10-1926 - 21-12-1927.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 509306, "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": "CO129-502-6 China- general situation 7-1-1927 - 3-3-1927", "page_number": 231, "title": "CO129-502-6 China- general situation 7-1-1927 - 3-3-1927", "content_text": "254 \n\n255 \n\n20. The situation may be summarised as follows:--\n\n(i) The Canton Government can only be recognised as either (a) the Government of China, or (b) the independent Government of part of China. \n(ii) The facts do not warrant (a), and the Cantonese Government have not yet advanced any formal claim to it. \n(iii) The facts may or may not warrant (b), but the Cantonese Government do not desire it. \n(iv) His Majesty's Government must wait until a claim is advanced, and then consider it on its merits, with due regard to the facts of the situation and the treaty position. \n(v) There is nothing in the Washington Treaty which would debar His Majesty's Government from recognising the Cantonese Government as either (a) or (b) if the facts warranted it, but \n(vi) Even if the facts warranted either (a) or (b), His Majesty's Government would be bound by the treaty at least to notify the other treaty Powers of their intention to recognise before they could proceed to such a step.\n\n21. No immediate action by any of the Powers in the direction of formal recognition is, therefore, to be expected. Matters are, in fact, at an impasse. The only recognition which the Cantonese would accept is not warranted by the facts; the only recognition which, even at a stretch, the facts could be held to warrant, would not be acceptable to them. Even were this not so, it is very doubtful whether the facts would as yet justify any formal act of recognition, for \n(i) The Cantonese Government is but newly established on the Yang-tsze, and there is no guarantee of its permanence. \n(ii) For the moment the only important treaty ports in its possession are Canton and Hankow; it may be taken as axiomatic that no Government which does not control Shanghai deserves special treatment in the matter of recognition. \n(iii) Its territories have no settled frontiers. \n(iv) It is merely one Government of several in China. \n(v) It is a revolutionary Government and its declared attitude* of indifference to the treaty and other obligations undertaken by the Government of which it would be whole or in part the successor is such that no Power is likely to commit itself to so formal and irrevocable an act as recognition without first making every effort either to bring the Cantonese Government to assume responsibility for the obligations of its predecessors, i.e., the unequal treaties, which would be impossible; or, in return for recognition, to negotiate fresh arrangements to take their place, which would require much time. Otherwise the act of recognition would imply the complete and formal abandonment by the Powers of existing treaty rights in China in the territory over which the Cantonese Government exercised authority.\n\n## II. Recent Developments\n\n22. Strict considerations of law and fact lead, therefore, to a negative conclusion, but our representatives in China do not contemplate or seem likely to be satisfied with a negative conclusion. It is, of course, possible that, as so often happens in China, a solution may be found, though logically no solution seems possible.\n\nMr. O'Malley, for example, thinks that we shall have to treat the Cantonese Government as equal in every respect to Peking and that it will not be enough to indicate to them that, as soon as they are in a position to claim to be the Government of China and to assume full responsibility for the treaty and other obligations of their predecessors, we shall be prepared to recognise them as the Government of China and that in the meantime we shall deal with them in a friendly spirit as a **de facto** authority.\n\nMr. Lampson suggested in his first review of the situation since his arrival: \n(i) That, provided the Canton Government admits the heritage of existing treaties from their predecessors and calls off the present anti-British boycott, we should legalise the present illegal surtaxes by granting the Washington surtaxes; and \n(ii) That, if, during a given period, the Cantonese Government have proved their good faith, we should grant them full recognition as the Government of the territory actually in their occupation and enter into formal negotiations for treaty revision.\n\nMr. Brenan reported in a telegram, dated the 3rd December, that the Cantonese would be ready to sign a reciprocal commercial treaty fixing the tariff for a term of a year and would be prepared to make special judicial arrangements in place of the present extra-territorial rights. His own suggestions were: \n(i) That His Majesty's Minister should make it clear by public statement that he is not accredited to any Central Government of China and that the Peking Cabinet will only be treated as the **de facto** authority over the area it controls. \n(ii) That we should then try to reach an understanding with the Nationalist Government regarding the area they control. We could only ascertain its possible terms by discussion, but his impression was that although the Kuo Min-tang desire complete equality of treatment, the Cantonese Government might be inclined to compromise.\n\n23. Whether a solution can be found on any of the above lines depends upon two conditions: \n(i) That the Powers should be willing to admit modification by irregular and informal means of the existing treaty position. \n(ii) That the Canton Government should waive its claim for formal recognition as the Government of China, or, indeed, as anything more than one, if perhaps the most legitimate, of the several existing **de facto** authorities; and that they should consent to treaty revision as opposed to treaty abolition.\n\n24. As regards (i), this would imply that the Powers, realising that there is no longer in China any recognised successor to the Government with which their treaties were negotiated and that the time has, nevertheless, come for a revision of those treaties, would consent to negotiate modifications piecemeal and on a provisional basis with such **de facto** authorities as they can find. Could this be done in regard, say, to tariffs and extra-territoriality without recognising the independence of such authorities?\n\n25. There are two precedents and neither of them exact: \n| Precedent | Description |\n| --- | --- |\n| (a) | The consular body at Shanghai concluded with the Provisional Government of Kiangsu a provisional agreement for the rendition of the Shanghai Mixed Court subject to ultimate ratification by Peking. This agreement implied no recognition of the Kiangsu Government as other than a local administration. The agreement dealt with a purely local issue which had at no time been the subject of a formal treaty between China and the Powers. |\n| (b) | In 1924 the Soviet Government concluded an agreement with the Government of the Autonomous Three Eastern Provinces of the Republic of China about the Chinese Eastern Railway without recognising Chang Tso-lin as anything other than the **de facto** ruler of those provinces still nominally subject to Peking. The subject of the agreement was a matter wholly within the jurisdiction of Chang Tso-lin, but it had the previous year been the subject of a formal treaty between the Soviet Government and the Government of Peking. The Mukden Agreement was, however, in amplification of and not in drastic modification of the Peking Agreement. |\n\nThe present proposal differs from both the above in that the contemplated local agreements would be in fundamental modification of formal treaties between China and the Powers, and in the case of Canton in this further respect, that they would be concluded with an authority that entirely repudiates Peking.\n\n26. His Majesty's Government, for their part, are prepared to fulfil condition (i) if it is legally possible to do so, and to adopt a less rigid attitude than in the past to treaty rights.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-502-6 China- general situation 7-1-1927 - 3-3-1927.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 535026, "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": "CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933", "page_number": 27, "title": "CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933", "content_text": "26\n\nagainst a judgment of acquittal.\n\nThe Hong Kong Order in Council (1909 S.R.O. page 805) does not appear to affect the matter.\n\n4. It is thought that reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should be in the following terms:\n\n\"Whether actual robbery is an essential element in the crime of piracy jure gentium or whether a frustrated attempt to commit a piratical robbery is not equally piracy jure gentium and justiciable as such.\"\n\n...\n\nI have been in correspondence with the Treasury regarding the liability for the costs of a special reference to the Judicial Committee...", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 535033, "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": "CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933", "page_number": 34, "title": "CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933", "content_text": "GENERAL.\n\nThe Law Officers are accordingly requested to advise :-\n\n(1) Whether the case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong was, in their opinion, rightly decided; if so (2) Whether, assuming that satisfactory proof of intent to commit piracy is forthcoming, a foreigner who on the high seas assaults with intent to murder any person on board a vessel, could be convicted in the Courts of this country under 1 Vic., c. 88, or in the Colonial Courts under 12 & 13 Vic., c. 96.\n\n(3) Whether the Imperial Parliament could properly be invited to pass legislation conferring jurisdiction to try foreigners in the circumstances indicated in (2).\n\n(4) Whether it is expedient to refer to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council any question arising out of the matters discussed in this case, and, if so, to settle the suggested terms of reference.\n\n(5) Generally on the case.\n\nOpinion of the Law Officers of the Crown and Mr. Wilfrid Lewis.\n\nIn our opinion the question whether or not the full court of Hong Kong arrived at a correct decision in quashing the conviction in the above case can only be satisfactorily answered by approaching the matter de novo.\n\nIt is thus necessary to decide at the outset what jurisdiction the Hong Kong Court had to try the twelve prisoners. They were Chinese subjects in a Chinese vessel upon the high seas. Although it is not expressly so stated, we feel entitled to assume that the acts with which the prisoners were charged were not committed inter fauces terrae, and took place more than 3 miles from the coast of Hong Kong so as to be outside the zone provided by the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act, 1878. From the above circumstances it results that these prisoners, in the absence of any relevant statute applying to foreigners when outside that zone and in foreign ships, were for no purpose subject to Imperial municipal law. These prisoners, however, were liable to be tried and punished for offences committed outside the 3-mile zone if amounting to piracy jure gentium. Reference should be made to the exhaustive judgment of Cockburn C. J. in Reg. v. Keyn (1876 2 Exch. D. 63 at pp. 159 to 238), where the history and scope of English criminal jurisdiction over foreigners upon the seas was traced and examined.\n\nIt will be convenient to postpone dealing with the questions whether actual robbery is an essential element in the crime of piracy jure gentium or whether a frustrated attempt to commit a piratical robbery is not equally piracy and justiciable as such, and to deal first with the question whether Imperial Courts have jurisdiction over foreigners in foreign ships who commit outside the 3-mile zone offences made punishable as piracy by British or Imperial Statutes.\n\nIn this connection the propositions of Cockburn C. J. in Reg. v. Keyn can be stated broadly as follows: Up to the 16th century the jurisdiction of English criminal courts was confined to crimes committed within the body of a county, while crimes at sea were subject to the jurisdiction of the Admiral (pp. 162, 167). Thus piracy jure gentium was never a felony at common law. Subsequently, in the reign of Richard II the respective jurisdictions were allowed to overlap, to the extent that in murder and mayhem done in great ships in the mouths of great rivers the Admiral was accorded concurrent jurisdiction with the common law (p. 168). And so English criminal law remained until 1878. Cockburn C. J. examined the statute 28 Henry VIII, c. 15, and reached the conclusion (pp. 169 and 209) that it created no new offence and did not render foreigners liable to any English Court when they were not previously so liable: the statute merely transferred the existing jurisdiction of the Admiral to commissioners appointed by the King, and the only jurisdiction over foreigners for crimes committed on the high seas being derived from the civil law the commissioners received no further or greater jurisdiction under the statute of Henry VIII than the Admiral possessed and no power to apply English criminal law to foreigners in circumstances where the Admiral could not apply it (p. 169). And this position was not altered by the statute 4 & 5 William IV, c. 36 (which gave the Central Criminal Court jurisdiction) or 7 & 8 Vict., c. 2, which gave power to ordinary Courts of Assize to try offences committed on the high seas and within the jurisdiction of the Admiral.\n\nGENERAL.\n\n3\n\nAdmittedly piracy jure gentium was within the jurisdiction of the Admiral, and to this extent the Commissioners (subsequently the Central Criminal Court and Assize Courts) obtained jurisdiction over foreigners committing crimes in foreign ships on the high seas, though Cockburn C. J. admitted that if Parliament had expressly asserted a more extended jurisdiction it would have been the duty of the Courts to recognise and endeavour to enforce such jurisdiction (pp. 160 and 207). At p. 208 he examined the question whether English municipal law either expressly or by implication had been extended to foreigners in foreign ships on the high seas. After approving the doctrine laid down by Turner L. J. in Cope v. Doherty (1858 2 De G. & J. 614 at 624 affirming 4 K. & J. 367) that Parliament must not be presumed to have legislated for foreigners and that to warrant such a conclusion the words of an Act ought to be express or its context very clear, Cockburn C. J. reached the conclusion that, up to 1876, no provision had been made by Parliament for trying foreigners for crimes committed generally upon the seas in foreign ships (p. 213), while such legislation as had been applied either expressly or impliedly to foreigners within what may for convenience be termed territorial waters had dealt with the revenue, customs, the protection of fisheries and kindred matters.\n\nWe feel satisfied that Cockburn C. J. in his exhaustive analysis of the law would have commented on such acts as the Suppression of Piracy Act, 1698 (Halsbury's Statutes IV, p. 334), the Piracy Act, 1821 (p. 343 op. cit.), the Offences at Sea Acts, 1799 and 1806 (pp. 401 and 417), the Murders Abroad Act, 1817 (p. 440), the Piracy Act, 1837 (p. 461), the Admiralty Offences Act, 1844 (p. 476), and the Piracy Act, 1850 (p. 520), had he considered that the provisions of any of those Acts either expressly or impliedly referred to foreigners, for, although the crime charged in Reg. v. Keyn was manslaughter, the principle at issue was sufficiently wide to render relevant the various municipal Acts dealing with piracy had the advocates in the case or other members of the Court cited them as conferring statutory criminal jurisdiction over foreigners in foreign ships.\n\nUp to 1878, therefore, we think that, while for the purpose of regulating national defence and such matters as customs and revenue, municipal law had in certain cases been applied to foreigners in foreign ships at sea, there was no statute which had extended the jurisdiction of our criminal courts in respect of crimes committed by foreigners at sea, unless committed on board a British ship or falling under the definition of piracy jure gentium. The ratio decidendi of Cockburn C. J. and the majority of the Court was responsible for the drafting of the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act of 1878. The effect of that Act was to declare and enact (see the preamble and per Coleridge C. J. in R. v. Dudley and Stephen, 14 Q.B.D. at 281), that the jurisdiction of our courts extended to all offences committed within 3 miles of the coast; but, subject to that extension, we think that the law of the high seas remains to-day as it was stated by Cockburn C. J. (see Harris v. steamship \"Franconia,\" 1877, 2 C.P.D. 173, and the Fagernes, 1927 P, 311).\n\nThus, in our opinion, Section 2 of the Piracy Act, 1837, does not assist, except in so far as it affects the question of punishment.\n\nWe think that the object of this Act was not the definition of the crime of piracy, but the regulation of its punishment. It must be remembered that at this time statutory revisions of punishments, and more particularly capital punishment, was occupying the attention of the Legislature see, for instance, the Criminal Law Act, 1827, Section 7, the Forgery Act, 1837, and the Punishment of Offences Act, 1837. We think the object of the Piracy Act, 1837, was to retain the death penalty in cases of piracy with violence, but in other cases of statutory or municipal piracy to substitute transportation for death (Section 3). Moreover, if actual robbery is an essential ingredient in piracy, the Section carries the matter no further; if it is not, it is unnecessary to invoke the section.\n\nAccordingly, in our opinion, it would not have been correct to indict these twelve prisoners under the Piracy Act, 1837, Section 2, or any other provision of English municipal law relating to piracy.\n\nOn the other hand, we do not agree with what we understand to be the view of the Hong Kong Court, that they were not competent to try a charge of piracy jure gentium. We entertain no doubt that the Hong Kong Court possesses jurisdiction over foreigners accused of piracy jure gentium. We think such jurisdiction was inherent under international law, upon the doctrine that the\n\n[7653]\n\nB 2\n\n34", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 535034, "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": "CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933", "page_number": 35, "title": "CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933", "content_text": "4\n\nGENERAL.\n\nA pirate is hostis humani generis, and his crimes are justiciable anywhere (per Cockburn C. J. in Reg. v. Keyn at pp. 163, 168–9; Hawkin's Pleas of the Crown, Volume 1, Chapter 20, Section 1; Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume 9, p. 524; Archbold's Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, 28th edition, pp. 670-1; Hall's International Law, 8th edition, pp. 311, 317). That view was held by the Privy Council in A.G. for Hong Kong v. Kwok a Sing (1873 L.R. 5 P.C. 179 at 199, 200), and the jurisdiction specifically recognised in the Courts of that Colony. In this respect, we think the acting Chief Justice was wrong when he expressed the opinion that such jurisdiction, in order to exist, would probably require to be founded on an express Statute of the Imperial Parliament. But even so, it seems to us that the Admiralty Offences (Colonial) Act, 1849 (12 & 13 Vict. c. 96) coupled, if necessary, with the earlier Acts 11 William III, c. 7, and 46 Geo. III, c. 54, have effectively invested the Hong Kong Courts with jurisdiction to try foreigners charged with piracy jure gentium upon the high seas.\n\nBut such jurisdiction is confined to acts falling within the conception of piracy jure gentium under international law. Any extension—and, conversely, any restriction—in the definition of that crime in English municipal law has not affected that jurisdiction.\n\nThus it remains to examine whether actual robbery is a necessary ingredient in the commission of piracy jure gentium, or whether an unsuccessful attempt to rob upon the high seas fulfils that crime. Up to the present case, this question seems to have been treated academically, for no direct answer has been given judicially, facts apparently not having arisen to require it.\n\nFor the purpose of answering such a question, we think the opinions of the leading writers on International Law are entitled to rank with more authority than was allowed in Reg. v. Keyn, when the application of municipal law was involved; or in Republic of Bolivia v. Indemnity Mutual (1909 1 K.B. 785), where the question was one of the construction of a policy of insurance (see pp. 790 and 802 ibid).\n\nWhile there is no absolute consensus on the subject, it seems to us that modern opinion supports the contention that an attempted or unsuccessful attack or attempt to rob at sea amounts to piracy jure gentium. Thus Hall, at p. 314 of his work on International Law, 8th edition, says:\n\n“Piracy may be said to consist in acts of violence done upon the ocean by a body of men acting independently of any politically organised society, and among acts which are recognised or alleged to be piratical,” the writer includes “robbery or attempt at robbery of a vessel by force or intimidation, either by way of attack from without or by way of revolt of the crew and conversion of the vessel and cargo to their own use.” Phillimore's International Law, 2nd edition, Vol. 1, p. 411, contains the passage, “Piracy is an assault upon vessels navigated on the high seas, committed animo furandi, whether the robbery or forcible depredation be effected or not, and whether or not it be accompanied by murder or personal injury.” Oppenheim, 4th edition, Vol. 1, 500, is to a similar effect, while Lord Birkenhead, 5th edition, pp. 139-140, goes further, in stating that an animus furandi is not essential, and robbery is not necessarily an ingredient in the offence. On the other hand, in Archbold's Criminal Pleading, robbery is treated as being of the essence of piracy jure gentium (p. 670); while in Hawkin's Pleas of the Crown (Ch. XX, 8th edition, p. 251), there appears to be a conflict between Sections 1 and 3 as to whether actual robbery is essential. It is worth noting, however, that statutes such as the Suppression of Piracy Act, 1698, Section 11, and 6 Geo. IV, c. 49 (an Act for encouraging the capture or destruction of piratical ships and vessels) suggest that Parliament recognised that piracy, though frustrated, was nevertheless piracy. See also the judgment of Dr. Lushington on the latter Statute in Serhassan (2 W.Rob. 354).\n\nThe chief argument to the contrary is founded on the charge to the Grand Jury by Sir Charles Hedges in R. v. Dawson (1696 13 State Trials 451 at 454) (approved in Kwok a Sing's case), but the conclusiveness and authority of his definition appear to us to be capable of being discounted by two factors: (1) he was dealing with charges where robbery of the clearest kind had occurred; (2) he was charging a Grand Jury at the second trial of the same prisoners, and it is tolerably clear from the circumstances that the occasion was not one when Sir Charles Hedges would have deemed it either necessary or expedient to embark on the niceties of technical definition. For such reasons, notwithstanding the Privy Council's adoption of Sir Charles's words in Kwok a Sing's case, and\n\n5\n\nGENERAL.\n\nthe statements which are to be found in such works as Carver's \"Carriage of Goods by Sea\" (7th Edition, p. 142), or Russell on Crimes (7th Edition, Vol. 1, p. 256), we consider that what Sir Charles Hedges said in R. v. Dawson need not be accepted as a precise definition to-day of piracy jure gentium. Nevertheless, it must be recognised that, until comparatively recently, piracy was regarded as practically another term for sea robbery (see the trial of Captain Kidd, reported in 14 State Trials, p. 123, and of Bonnet and others, 15 State Trials, p. 2341, where the several indictments laid are set out in full; see also per Lord Abinger C. J. in R. v. Macgregor, 1 Car & Kirwin at 431). But, weighing the various opinions, judicial and otherwise, as well as we can, we are of the view that the old definition expressed by Sir Charles Hedges and approved by the Privy Council in Kwok a Sing's case, is not conclusive to the effect that actual robbery is an essential ingredient in piracy jure gentium. It is to be observed, also, that Sir Robert Phillimore, in the Chapter already referred to, cites several of these authorities without, apparently, regarding them as being in conflict with his definition of piracy quoted above.\n\nIn our opinion, therefore, the full Court of Hong Kong was wrong when it decided to quash the conviction of these twelve prisoners. We think the indictment, verdict, and conviction were proper upon the facts, and if, on a future occasion, a similar case arises of an unsuccessful attack by pirates, the Hong Kong Court is entitled to, and should, convict. But it seems to us that, before convicting in such circumstances, the Court should have clear evidence of the attack being made with intent to rob, or, in other words, made piratically. Under the present law, homicide by a foreigner when not in a British ship and outside Hong Kong territorial waters (and a fortiori lesser offences, such as assaults) are not cognisable by Imperial Courts. It is of obvious importance that the scope of judicial treatment by any State of piracy jure gentium should not be extended so as to trespass unduly upon the municipal jurisdiction which every civilised State is assumed to exercise over its subjects. In the interests of international amity, any unwarranted extension of Imperial jurisdiction over the high seas is sincerely to be avoided.\n\nOur answers to the questions put to us are as follows:—\n\n(1) The conviction was correct and should not have been quashed.\n\n(2) A foreigner, when not in a British ship and outside the 3-mile zone, cannot be proceeded against under 1 Vic. c. 88, or in Colonial Courts by virtue of 12 and 13 Vic. c. 96.\n\n(3) It is unnecessary, in our opinion, to answer this, but we conceive great objection to legislation extending Imperial Municipal jurisdiction beyond the limits at present laid down.\n\n(4) Having regard to the importance of the question to the community at Hong Kong, we think that this is a proper case for special reference to the Judicial Committee under Section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act, 1833, if His Majesty should think fit. As the judgment was one quashing the conviction, we do not think that an appeal would have lain under Section 3. We are aware of the decisions in R. v. Bertrand (L.R. 1 P.C. 520) and R. v. Murphy (L.R. 2 P.C. 535). These, however, were cases in which a new trial had been ordered without jurisdiction. In the present case, in spite of power to order a new trial under Section 78 of the Hong Kong Criminal Procedure Ordinance, the Court quashed the conviction, and we know of no case in which the Privy Council has entertained an appeal against a judgment of acquittal. In our opinion, the Hong Kong Order in Council (1909 S.R.O., p. 805) does not affect the matter.\n\nWe think that the reference should be in the following terms:—\n\n“Whether actual robbery is an essential element in the crime of piracy jure gentium, or whether a frustrated attempt to commit a piratical robbery is not equally piracy jure gentium and justiciable as such.\"\n\nLaw Officers' Department,\n\nJuly 29, 1932.\n\nT. W. H. INSKIP.\n\nF. B. MERRIMAN.\n\nWILFRID LEWIS.\n\n36", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 535038, "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": "CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933", "page_number": 39, "title": "CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933", "content_text": "40\n\nof the Judicial Committee hat, 1834, for the purpose of\n\neliciting their opinion on the matter.\n\nIn connection the Law officers are referred to the remarks contained in the three concluding paragraphs of the Treasury Solicitor's minute of the 9th March, 1932. The Law officers are accordingly requested to\n\nadvise;\n\n(1) Whether the case of Rex. v. Chung Tam Wong was in their opinion rightly decided;\n\n(2) Whether, assuming that satisfactory proof of intent to commit piracy is forthcoming,\n\na foreigner who on the high seas assaults with intent to murder any person on board\n\na vessel could be convicted in the Courts\n\nof this country under 11 & 12 Vic. c.88, or in\n\nthe Colonial Courts under 18 & 19 Vic. c.96.\n\n(3) Whether the Imperial Parliament could\n\nproperly be invited to pass legislation\n\nconferring jurisdiction to try foreigners\n\nin the circumstances indicated in (2).\n\n(4) Whether it is expedient to refer to the\n\nJudicial Committee of the Privy Council any\n\nquestion arising out of the matters\n\ndiscussed in this case, and if so, to\n\nsettle the suggested terms of reference.\n\n(5) Generally on the case.\n\nPage 3", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 535093, "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": "CO129-541-10 Cheng Kwok Yau- application for special leave to appeal 13-10-1932 - 3-2-1933", "page_number": 14, "title": "CO129-541-10 Cheng Kwok Yau- application for special leave to appeal 13-10-1932 - 3-2-1933", "content_text": "L.S.\n\nAt the Court at Buckingham Palace\n\nThe 15th day of December, 1932.\n\nPRESENT,\n\nTHE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY\n\nLORD PRESIDENT\n\nLORD COLEBROOKE\n\nMAJOR TRYON\n\nMR. BENNETT.\n\nWHEREAS there was this day read at the Board a Report from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council dated the 13th day of December 1932 in the words following, viz.:—\n\n\"WHEREAS by virtue of His late Majesty King Edward the Seventh's Order in Council of the 18th day of October 1909 there was referred unto this Committee a humble Petition of Cheng Kwok-Yau praying for special leave to appeal to Your Majesty in Council from the Judgment of the Supreme Court of Hong Kong (In Appeal) dated the 12th day of September 1932 and pronounced in the matter of the conviction of the Petitioner by the said Supreme Court on an indictment charging him with the following offence: that he, on divers dates between the 23rd February 1932 and the 24th of March 1932 (both dates inclusive) in this Colony, through one Lau Hing, did counsel, procure and command Chui Yung Sham and Wong Nam Sheung to do and commit a certain felony by them committed on the 24th day of March 1932, at Wongneichong in this Colony, that is to say, to murder Fung Him alias George Fung. Ordinance No.14 of 1929 Sections 2 and 3 and Common Law.”\n\n“THE LORDS OF THE COMMITTEE in obedience to His late Majesty's said Order in Council have taken the said humble Petition into consideration and having heard Counsel in support thereof Their Lordships do this day agree humbly to report to Your Majesty as their opinion that the said Petition ought to be dismissed.\"\n\nHIS MAJESTY having taken the said Report into consideration was pleased by and with the advice of His Privy Council to approve thereof and to order as it is hereby ordered that the same be punctually observed obeyed and carried into execution.\n\nWhereof the Governor or Officer administering the Government of the Island of Hong Kong for the time being and all other persons whom it may concern are to take notice and govern themselves accordingly.\n\nM. P. A. HANKEY.\n\n[11]\n\nPrinted under the authority of HIS MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE By HARRISON and Sons, Ltd., 44-47, St. Martin's Lane, London, W.C.2, Printers in Ordinary to His Majesty.\n\n(B306/7254)T Wt. 150 7 12/32 H & S, Ltd, Gp. 306", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-541-10 Cheng Kwok Yau- application for special leave to appeal 13-10-1932 - 3-2-1933.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 537319, "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": "CO129-543-4 Piracy- Case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong and others 10-2-1933 - 2-3-1934", "page_number": 33, "title": "CO129-543-4 Piracy- Case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong and others 10-2-1933 - 2-3-1934", "content_text": "## \n2 \n\nNOW, THEREFORE, His Majesty, having taken the said letter into His consideration, is pleased, by and with the advice of the Privy Council, to order and it is hereby ordered that the question whether actual robbery is an essential element in the crime of piracy jure gentium or whether a frustrated attempt to commit a piratical robbery is not equally piracy jure gentium be and the same is hereby referred to the Judicial Committee for their hearing and consideration.\n\n**M. P. A. Hankey**\n\nPrinted by **HIS MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE PRESS**, \nPocock Street, S.E... \n\nA", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-543-4 Piracy- Case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong and others 10-2-1933 - 2-3-1934.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 537331, "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": "CO129-543-4 Piracy- Case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong and others 10-2-1933 - 2-3-1934", "page_number": 45, "title": "CO129-543-4 Piracy- Case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong and others 10-2-1933 - 2-3-1934", "content_text": "45 \n\nof the Privy Council to order and it is hereby ordered \nthat the question whether actual robbery is an essential \nelement in the crime of piracy jure gentium or whether a \nfrustrated attempt to commit a **practical** robbery is not \nequally piracy jure gentium be and the same is hereby \nreferred to the Judicial Committee for their hearing \nand consideration.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-543-4 Piracy- Case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong and others 10-2-1933 - 2-3-1934.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 544621, "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": "CO129-547-8 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 22-3-1934 - 14-12-1934", "page_number": 8, "title": "CO129-547-8 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 22-3-1934 - 14-12-1934", "content_text": "# REPORT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL, DELIVERED THE 26TH JULY, 1934.\n\n## Present at the Hearing:\n\n* **THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY)**\n* **LORD ATKIN**\n* **LORD TOMLIN**\n* **LORD MACMILLAN**\n* **LORD WRIGHT**\n\n[Delivered by **THE LORD CHANCELLOR**.]\n\nOn the 4th January, 1931, on the high seas, a number of armed Chinese nationals were cruising in two Chinese junks. They pursued and attacked a cargo junk which was also a Chinese vessel. The master of the cargo junk attempted to escape, and a chase ensued during which the pursuers came within 200 yards of the cargo junk. The chase continued for over half an hour, during which shots were fired by the attacking party, and while it was still proceeding, the S.S. \"Hang Sang\" approached and subsequently also the S.S. \"Shui Chow.\" The officers in command of these merchant vessels intervened and through their agency, the pursuers were eventually taken in charge by the Commander of H.M.S. \"Somme,\" which had arrived in consequence of a report made by wireless. They were brought as prisoners to Hong Kong and indicted for the crime of piracy. The jury found them guilty subject to the following question of law: \"Whether an accused person may be convicted of piracy in circumstances where no robbery has occurred.\" The Full Court of Hong Kong on further consideration came to the conclusion that robbery was necessary to support a conviction of piracy and in the result the accused were acquitted.\n\nPage 66\n\nThe decision of the Hong Kong court was final and the present proceedings are in no sense an appeal from that court, whose judgment stands.\n\nUpon the 10th November, 1933, His Majesty in Council made the following order: \"The question whether actual robbery is an essential element of the crime of piracy jure gentium or whether a frustrated attempt to commit a piratical robbery is not equally piracy jure gentium is referred to the Judicial Committee for their hearing and consideration.\"\n\nIt is to this question that their Lordships have applied themselves, and they think it will be convenient to give their answer at once and then to make some further observations upon the matter.\n\nThe answer is as follows:\n\n**Actual robbery is not an essential element in the crime of piracy jure gentium. A frustrated attempt to commit a piratical robbery is equally piracy jure gentium.**\n\nIn considering such a question, the Board is permitted to consult and act upon a wider range of authority than that which it examines when the question for determination is one of municipal law only. The sources from which international law is derived include Treaties between various States, State papers, municipal Acts of Parliament and the decisions of municipal Courts and last, but not least, opinions of jurisconsults or text book writers. It is a process of inductive reasoning. It must be remembered that in the strict sense international law still has no legislature, no executive and no judiciary, though in a certain sense there is now an international judiciary in the Hague Tribunal and attempts are being made by the League of Nations to draw up codes of international law. Speaking generally, in embarking upon international law, their Lordships are to a great extent in the realm of opinion and in estimating the value of opinion it is permissible not only to seek a consensus of views, but to select what appear to be the better views upon the question.\n\nWith regard to crimes as defined by international law, that law has no means of trying or punishing them. The recognition of them as constituting crimes and the trial and punishment of the criminals are left to the municipal law of each country. But whereas according to international law the criminal jurisdiction of municipal law is ordinarily restricted to crimes committed on its terra firma or territorial waters or its own ships, and to crimes by its own nationals wherever committed, it is also recognised as extending to piracy committed on the high seas by any national on any ship, because a person guilty of such piracy has placed himself beyond the protection of any State. He is no longer a national, but hostis humani generis and as such he is justiciable by any State anywhere. Grotius (1583-1645) \"De Jure Belli et Pacis,\" vol. 2 cap 20 § 40.\n\nTheir Lordships have been referred to a very large number of Acts of Parliament, decided cases and opinions of jurisconsults or text book writers, some of which lend colour to the contention that robbery is a necessary ingredient of piracy, others to the opposite contention. Their Lordships do not propose to comment on all of them but it will be convenient to begin the present discussion by referring to the Act of Henry VIII, cap 15, in the year 1536, which was entitled \"An Act for the punishment of pirates and robbers of the sea.\" Before that Act, the jurisdiction over pirates was exercised by the High Court of Admiralty in England and that Court administered the civil law. The civilians, however, had found themselves handicapped by some of their canons of procedure, as for example, that a man could not be found guilty unless he either confessed or was proved guilty by two witnesses. The Act recites the deficiency of the Admiralty jurisdiction in the trial of offences according to the civil law and after referring to \"all treasons, felonies, robberies, murders and confederacies hereafter to be committed in or upon the sea, etc.\" (it is not necessary to set out the whole of it), proceeds to enact that all offences committed at sea, etc., shall be tried according to the common law under the King's Commission, to be directed to the Admiralty and others within the realm.\n\nMany of the doubts and difficulties inherent in considering subsequent definitions of piracy are probably due to a misapprehension of that Act. It has been thought, for example, that nothing could be piracy unless it amounted to a felony as distinguished from a misdemeanour, and that, as an attempt to commit a crime was only a misdemeanour at common law, an attempt to commit piracy could not constitute the crime of piracy because piracy is a felony as distinguished from a misdemeanour. This mistaken idea proceeds upon a misapprehension of the Act. In Coke's (1532-1634) Institutes Part III Ed. 1809, after a discussion on felonies, robberies, murders and confederacies committed in or upon the sea, it is stated (p.112) that the statute did not alter the offence of piracy or make the offence felony, but \"leaveth the offence as it was before this Act, viz., felony only by the civil law, but giveth a mean of triall by the common law and inflicteth such pains of death as if they had been attainted of any felony done upon the land. But yet the offence is not altered, for in the indictment upon this statute the offence must be alleged upon the sea;\"\n\nThe conception of piracy according to the civil law is expounded by Molloy (1646–1690) \"De Jure Maritimo et Navali\" or \"A Treatise of affairs Maritime and of Commerce.\" That book was first published in 1676 and the ninth edition in 1769. Chapter IV is headed \"Of Piracy.\" The author defines a pirate as a sea thief or hostis humani generis who to enrich himself either by surprise or open face sets upon merchants or other traders by sea. He clearly does not regard piracy as necessarily involving successful robbery or as being inconsistent with an unsuccessful attempt. Thus in para. xiii he says: \"So likewise if a ship shall be assaulted by Pirates and in the attempt the Pirates shall be overcome if the Captors bring them to the next Port and the Judge openly rejects the Trial, or the Captain cannot...", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-547-8 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 22-3-1934 - 14-12-1934.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 544636, "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": "CO129-547-8 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 22-3-1934 - 14-12-1934", "page_number": 24, "title": "CO129-547-8 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 22-3-1934 - 14-12-1934", "content_text": "# \n## \n\nThe question whether actual robbery is an **essential element of the crime of piracy jure gentium** or whether a frustrated attempt to commit a piratical robbery is not equally piracy jure gentium is referred to the Judicial Committee for their hearing and consideration.\" \n\nIt is to this question that their Lordships have applied themselves, and they think it will be convenient to give their answer at once and then to make some further observations upon the matter. \n\nThe answer is as follows:- \n\n**Actual robbery is not an essential element in the crime of piracy jure gentium. A frustrated attempt to commit a piratical robbery is equally piracy jure gentium.** \n\nIn considering such a question, the Board is permitted to consult and act upon a wider range of authority than that which it examines when the question for determination is one of municipal law only. The sources from which international law is derived include Treaties between various States, State papers, municipal Acts of Parliament and the decisions of municipal Courts and last, but not least, opinions of jurisconsults or text book writers. It is a process of inductive reasoning. It must be remembered that in the strict sense international law still has no legislature, no executive and no judiciary, though in a certain sense there is now an international judiciary in the Hague Tribunal and attempts are being made by the League of Nations to draw up codes of international law. Speaking generally, in embarking upon international law, their Lordships are to a great extent in the realm of opinion and in estimating the value of opinion it is permissible not only to seek a consensus of views, but to select what appear to be the better views upon the question. \n\nWith regard to crimes as defined by international law, that law has no means of trying or punishing them. The recognition of them as constituting crimes and the trial and punishment of the criminals are left to the municipal law of each country. But whereas according to international law the criminal jurisdiction of municipal law is ordinarily restricted to crimes committed on its terra firma or territorial waters or its own ships, and to crimes by its own nationals wherever committed, it is also recognised as extending to piracy committed on the high seas by any national on any ship, because a person guilty of such piracy has placed himself beyond the protection of any State. He is no longer a national, but **hostis humani generis** and as such he is justiciable by any State anywhere. Grotius (1583-1645) \"De Jure Belli et Pacis,\" vol. 2 cap 20 § 40. \n\nTheir Lordships have been referred to a very large number of Acts of Parliament, decided cases and opinions of jurisconsults or text book writers, some of which lend colour to the contention that robbery is a necessary ingredient of piracy, others to the opposite contention. Their Lordships do not propose to comment on all of them but it will be convenient to begin the present discussion by referring to the Act of Henry VIII, cap 15, in the year 1536, which was entitled **An Act for the punishment of pirates and robbers of the sea**. Before that Act, the jurisdiction over pirates was exercised by the High Court of Admiralty in England and that Court administered the civil law. The civilians however, had found themselves handicapped by some of their canons of procedure, as for example, that a man could not be found guilty unless he either confessed or was proved guilty by two witnesses. The Act recites the deficiency of the Admiralty jurisdiction in the trial of offences according to the civil law and after referring to \"all treasons, felonies, robberies, murders and confederacies hereafter to be committed in or upon the sea, etc.\" (it is not necessary to set out the whole of it), proceeds to enact that all offences committed at sea, etc., shall be tried according to the common law under the King's Commission, to be directed to the Admiralty and others within the realm. \n\nMany of the doubts and difficulties inherent in considering subsequent definitions of piracy are probably due to a misapprehension of that Act. It has been thought, for example, that nothing could be piracy unless it amounted to a felony as distinguished from a misdemeanour, and that, as an attempt to commit a crime was only a misdemeanour at common law, an attempt to commit piracy could not constitute the crime of piracy because piracy is a felony as distinguished from a misdemeanour. This mistaken idea proceeds upon a misapprehension of the Act. In Coke's (1532-1634) Institutes Part III Ed. 1809, after a discussion on felonies, robberies, murders and confederacies committed in or upon the sea, it is stated (p.112) that the statute did not alter the offence of piracy or make the offence felony, but \"leaveth the offence as it was before this Act, viz., felony only by the civil law, but giveth a mean of triall by the common law and inflicteth such pains of death as if they had been attainted of any felony done upon the land. But yet the offence is not altered, for in the indictment upon this statute the offence must be alleged upon the ... so as this act inflicteth punishment for that which is a felony by the civil law and no felony whereof the common law taketh knowledge.\" \n\nThe conception of piracy according to the civil law is expounded by Molloy (1646–1690) “De Jure Maritimo et Navali\" or **A Treatise of affairs Maritime and of Commerce**. That book was first published in 1676 and the ninth edition in 1769. Chapter IV is headed \"Of Piracy.\" The author defines a pirate as a sea thief or **hostis humani generis** who to enrich himself either by surprise or open face sets upon merchants or other traders by sea.\" He clearly does not regard piracy as necessarily involving successful robbery or as being inconsistent with an unsuccessful attempt. Thus in para. xiii he says: \"So likewise if a ship shall be assaulted by Pirates and in the attempt the Pirates shall be overcome if the Captors bring them to the next Port and the Judge openly rejects the Trial, or the Captain cannot ... \n\n## \n30", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-547-8 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 22-3-1934 - 14-12-1934.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 544643, "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": "CO129-547-8 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 22-3-1934 - 14-12-1934", "page_number": 31, "title": "CO129-547-8 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 22-3-1934 - 14-12-1934", "content_text": "# IN THE MATTER OF PIRACY JURE GENTIUM\n\n## Note on the Report of the Judicial Committee\n\n41\n\nAfter perusing the above Report I find it impossible to estimate what its exact effect is likely to be on the Colonial Courts exercising criminal jurisdiction in respect of piracy jure gentium. The Judicial Committee has now said that the definition of piracy given by Sir Charles Hedges in his charge to the Grand Jury in Dawson's case must be read secundum subjectam materiam. In other words, what was approved by the Board in **A.-G. for Hong Kong v. Kwok-a-Sing** (1873) L.R. 5 P.C. 179 as a correct exposition of the law as to what constituted piracy jure gentium, is now not to be regarded as exhaustive.\n\nIt seems to me that one of the difficulties which may arise in minds of those who are called upon to exercise criminal jurisdiction in the Colonies will result from the fact that the Report proceeds upon the lines expressed in the penultimate sentence of the Report where it is said that: \"A careful examination of the subject shows a gradual widening of the earlier definition of piracy to bring it from time to time more in consonance with situations either not thought of or not in existence when the older juris consults were expressing their opinions\".\n\nIt is not very evident quite how this 'gradual widening' could on the particular question put to the Board supply an answer, as frustrated attempts to commit piratical robbery conceivably must have occurred in ancient as well as in modern times.\n\nBe that as it may however, as an Answer to 1.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-547-8 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 22-3-1934 - 14-12-1934.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 544646, "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": "CO129-547-8 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 22-3-1934 - 14-12-1934", "page_number": 34, "title": "CO129-547-8 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 22-3-1934 - 14-12-1934", "content_text": "A. 9794\n\n28th July, 1934.\n\n•414\n8\n[18]\n\ntherein\n\nSir,\n\nI am directed by the Treasury Solicitor to refer to Mr. Cowell's letter (`13758/33`) of the 18th November, 1933, transmitting an Order of His Majesty in Council of the 10th November, 1933, referring to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council certain questions as to the elements constituting the crime of piracy jure gentium, and to report that the necessary steps were taken as therein requested to bring the matter before the Judicial Committee, before whom it was argued on the 2nd July, 1934, and subsequent days. Sir Leslie Scott, K.C. and Mr. Preedy appeared to represent the Secretary of State and the Attorney-General (with him Mr. Wilfrid Lewis) also appeared to assist the Lords of the Committee with argument. The Lords of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council have now delivered their Report stating that they have come to the conclusion that the better view and the proper answer to give to the question addressed to them is that actual robbery is not an essential element in the crime of piracy jure gentium, and that a frustrated attempt to commit piratical robbery is equally piracy jure gentium.\n\nP.T.O.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-547-8 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 22-3-1934 - 14-12-1934.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 544653, "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": "CO129-547-8 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 22-3-1934 - 14-12-1934", "page_number": 41, "title": "CO129-547-8 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 22-3-1934 - 14-12-1934", "content_text": "# In the Privy Council\n\n## In the Matter of a Reference under the Judicial Committee Act, 1833 (3 & 4 Will. IV. Cap. 41, Section 4)\n\n## AND\n\n## In the Matter of Piracy jure gentium\n\n### **CASE FOR HIS MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY-GENERAL**\n\nThe submission by His Majesty's Attorney-General in support of the view that actual robbery is not an essential element in the crime of piracy jure gentium.\n\n1. By Order in Council dated 10th November 1933, His Majesty, by and with the advice of the Privy Council, was pleased to refer to the Judicial Committee for their hearing and consideration the question whether actual robbery is an essential element in the crime of piracy jure gentium or whether a frustrated attempt to commit a piratical robbery is not equally piracy jure gentium.\n\n2. The circumstances giving rise to the said reference are as follows:\n\n(a) At the Criminal Sessions duly held at Hong Kong in the month of February 1931, one Chung Tam Kwong and 12 other accused persons were arraigned and tried before Acting Chief Justice Wood and a jury upon a count of an indictment, the material parts whereof were:\n\n| Statement of Offence | Particulars of Offence |\n| --- | --- |\n| Piracy | For that they on the 4th day of January 1931 on the high seas with force and arms attacked and set upon cargo junk No. 206V and Chung Ma Yat the master thereof, putting the said Chung Ma Yat in bodily fear, with intent piratically and feloniously to take away the said junk her tackle and cargo from the owners thereof and to steal the same. |\n\nAll the said accused were found guilty on the said Count, but the learned Acting Chief Justice reserved for the consideration of the full Court of Hong Kong the following question of law, namely, Whether an accused person may be convicted of piracy (meaning thereby of piracy jure gentium) in circumstances where no robbery has occurred.\n\n## RECORD\n\n### Case for the Secretary of State for the Colonies\n### Case for H.M. Attorney General", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-547-8 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 22-3-1934 - 14-12-1934.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 544657, "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": "CO129-547-8 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 22-3-1934 - 14-12-1934", "page_number": 45, "title": "CO129-547-8 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 22-3-1934 - 14-12-1934", "content_text": "# In the Privy Council\n\n## In the Matter of a Reference under the Judicial Committee Act, 1833 (3 & 4 Will. IV. Cap. 41, Section 4)\n\n## AND\n\n## In the Matter of Piracy jure gentium.\n\n# In the Privy Council\n\n## In the Matter of a Reference under the Judicial Committee Act, 1833 (3 and 4 Will. IV. ch. 41. Section 4).\n\n## AND\n\n## In the Matter of Piracy jure gentium.\n\n**CASE FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES.**\n\n**CASE** for His Majesty's Attorney-General.\n\nTHE TREASURY SOLICITOR,\nStorey's Gate,\nSt. James's Park,\nS.W.1.\n\nThe submission by the Secretary of State for the Colonies in support of the view that actual robbery is an essential element in the crime of piracy jure gentium.\n\n1. By an Order in Council dated the 10th November, 1933, the following question was referred to the Judicial Committee of His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council for their hearing and consideration: \"Whether actual robbery is an essential element in the crime of piracy jure gentium or whether a frustrated attempt to commit a piratical robbery is not equally piracy jure gentium.”\n\n2. Piracy jure gentium, though it has been the subject of definition by judicial authorities and eminent lawyers, has never been the subject of definition in any statutes, although the legislature has from time to time conferred jurisdiction in respect thereof upon the Courts and has from time to time prescribed punishment therefor.\n\n3. At the outset it is submitted necessary to distinguish between piracy jure gentium and those crimes made piracy by statute and which may be conveniently described as municipal piracy.\n\nIn giving Judgment in the case of `Re Tienan (1864) 5 B. & S. 645`, Ld. Blackburn (at p. 687) said:\n\"But it appears clear enough, both from the American authorities and our own, that there are offences called piracy by the law of those respective countries which are not piracy by the laws of nations.\"\n\nTo the same effect is the following passage from Oppenheim's International Law 4th Edn. p. 506:\n\"Piracy according to the Law of Nations... must not be confused with the conception of piracy according to the Municipal Law.\"\n\nPrinted by HIS MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE PRESS, Pocock Street, S.E.1.\n\n## Page 59\n**RECORD.**\n\n**Case for the Secretary of State for the Colonies.**", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-547-8 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 22-3-1934 - 14-12-1934.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 544662, "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": "CO129-547-8 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 22-3-1934 - 14-12-1934", "page_number": 50, "title": "CO129-547-8 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 22-3-1934 - 14-12-1934", "content_text": "# In the Privy Council\n\n## In the Matter of a Reference under the Judicial Committee Act, 1833 (3 & 4 Will. IV. ch. 41. Section 4)\n\nAND\n\n## In the Matter of Piracy jure gentium\n\n### CASE for the Secretary of State for the Colonies\n\n# In the Privy Council\n\n## In the Matter of a Reference under the Judicial Committee Act, 1833 (3 and 4 Will. IV. ch. 41. sect. 4)\n\nAND\n\n## In the Matter of Piracy jure gentium\n\nThe question referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for their hearing and consideration is as follows:-\n\nWhether actual robbery is an essential element in the crime of piracy jure gentium or whether a frustrated attempt to commit piratical robbery is not equally piracy jure gentium.”\n\n## RECORD INDEX\n\n| Description of Document | Date | Page |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| 1. Order of Reference | 10th Nov., 1933 | 1 |\n| 2. Judgments of the Full Court of Hong-Kong in the case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong and 12 others (Hong-Kong Law Reports Vol. 25- 1931 and 1932 page 31) | 1st April, 1931 | 2 |\n| Extract from the 'Archives of Maryland' as to the trial of Thomas Smith for piracy in 1637 | | 18 |\n\nTREASURY SOLICITOR, Storey's Gate, St. James's Park, London, S.W.1.\n\nPrinted by HIS MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE PRESS. Pocock Street, S.E.1.\n\nPage 50\nPage 51", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-547-8 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 22-3-1934 - 14-12-1934.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 544663, "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": "CO129-547-8 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 22-3-1934 - 14-12-1934", "page_number": 51, "title": "CO129-547-8 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 22-3-1934 - 14-12-1934", "content_text": "# In the Privy Council\n\n## In the Matter of a Reference under the Judicial Committee Act, 1833 (3 and 4 Will. IV. ch. 41. sect. 4)\n\nAND\n\n## In the Matter of Piracy jure gentium.\n\nThe question referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for their hearing and consideration is as follows:- \"Whether actual robbery is an essential element in the crime of piracy jure gentium or whether a frustrated attempt to commit a piratical robbery is not equally piracy jure gentium.”\n\n## RECORD\n\n### No. 1.\n\n## ORDER OF REFERENCE.\n\n### No. 1. Order of Reference, 10th November, 1933.\n\nAt the Court at Buckingham Palace, the 10th day of November, 1933.\n\nPresent, the King's Most Excellent Majesty in Council.\n\nWhereas it is provided by Section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act, 1833, that it shall be lawful for His Majesty to refer to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for hearing or for consideration any such matters whatsoever as His Majesty shall think fit:\n\nAnd whereas there was this day read at the Board a letter from the Right Honourable Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, stating that at the Criminal Sessions held in Hong Kong in February, 1931 twelve subjects of the Republic of China were indicted for the crime of piracy, to wit, that they on the 4th day of January, 1931, on the High Seas with force and arms assaulted and put in fear of their lives certain mariners in cargo junk No. 206. V. with intent to carry away the said junk, her...\n\nPage 10\n22763\nA 2\n69", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-547-8 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 22-3-1934 - 14-12-1934.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 544664, "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": "CO129-547-8 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 22-3-1934 - 14-12-1934", "page_number": 52, "title": "CO129-547-8 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 22-3-1934 - 14-12-1934", "content_text": "70 \n\n# No. 1. Order of \n## Reference, \nber, 1933 -continued.\n\nNo. 2. Judgment of Wood, Acting C. J. delivered 1st April, 1931. Reported **Hong-Kong L. R.** Vol. 25, page 31.\n\nWhether an accused person may be convicted of piracy (meaning thereby of piracy jure gentium) in circumstances where no robbery has occurred, a question which by the judgment of the Full Court of Hong Kong delivered on the 1st April, 1931, was determined in the negative with the result that the said conviction was quashed and the prisoners were discharged; that no appeal lies from the above judgment of the Full Court which is and remains binding upon all the Courts of Hong Kong; that the question of law involved in this judgment is one of far-reaching importance and that it is conceived that others of His Majesty's Criminal Courts in the Far East will regard the said judgment as one which, though not binding on them, they ought to follow; that the efficacy of the protection afforded by His Majesty's Naval Forces against piracy on the High Seas in the Far East may, if the law has been rightly declared in the said judgment, be seriously affected, and that in these circumstances the said Secretary of State humbly submitted that the matter was a proper one to be referred to the Judicial Committee of His Majesty's Privy Council under the Statute aforesaid and prayed that His Majesty might be pleased to direct accordingly.\n\nNow, therefore, His Majesty, having taken the said letter into His consideration, is pleased, by and with the advice of the Privy Council, to order and it is hereby ordered that the question whether actual robbery is an essential element in the crime of piracy jure gentium or whether a frustrated attempt to commit a piratical robbery is not equally piracy jure gentium be and the same is hereby referred to the Judicial Committee for their hearing and consideration.\n\nNo. 2. \nM. P. A. Hankey.\n\n30 \n\n## JUDGMENT OF THE FULL COURT OF HONG KONG IN THE CASE OF REX v. CHUNG TAM KWONG AND 12 OTHERS.\n\nWOOD, Acting C.J.\n\nThis matter arises before us as a question of law reserved for the consideration of the full court under section 78 sub-sec. (1) of the **Criminal Procedure Ordinance, 1899 (Ordinance No. 9 of 1899)**.\n\n### No. 2. Judgment of Wood, Acting C.J. delivered 1st April, 1931. \nThis question was reserved by myself during the Criminal Sessions held on February last. The prisoners were convicted by the jury on an indictment for piracy. The facts established in the case by uncontradicted evidence were these: On the 4th January, in the present year, on the high seas, the prisoners were cruising in two junks. The prisoners are subjects of China and the junks were Chinese vessels. One or more of the prisoners were in possession of firearms. The prisoners pursued and attacked a cargo junk which was also a Chinese vessel. The master of the cargo junk was alarmed and attempted to escape. A chase ensued during which the prisoners came within two hundred yards of the cargo junk. The chase continued for over half an hour, the vessels preserving this distance. Shots were fired by the attacking party. While the chase was still proceeding, the s.s. **Hang Sang** approached and subsequently also the s.s. **Shui Chow**. The officers in command of these merchant vessels interfered and through their agency the prisoners were eventually taken in charge by the commander of H.M.S. **Somme**, which arrived in consequence of a report made by wireless. The prisoners were then brought to this Colony and indicted for the crime of piracy. The count contained in the indictment on which evidence was offered was as follows:\n\n| Statement of Offence | Particulars of Offence |\n| --- | --- |\n| Piracy | that you... on the 4th day of January, 1931, upon the high seas with force and arms assaulted and put \"in fear of their lives... mariners in cargo junk No. 206V. with intent to take the said junk her tackle and cargo from the owners thereof and to steal the same.\" |\n\nAfter the verdict of the jury, I reserved the following question of law: \"whether an accused person may be convicted of piracy in circumstances where no robbery has occurred.\"\n\nThe learned Attorney General, in his argument before us on behalf of the Crown, has submitted that the decision of this question depends wholly upon international law. The piracy charged is piracy jure gentium. By international law this crime is justiciable everywhere. A conviction for this crime may be recorded by a competent court in any country. The Supreme Court of any community in its criminal jurisdiction will, he submitted, accept a power from international law to punish prisoners guilty of piracy jure gentium. If I have followed his argument correctly, he claimed that this is the \n\n71", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-547-8 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 22-3-1934 - 14-12-1934.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 544668, "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": "CO129-547-8 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 22-3-1934 - 14-12-1934", "page_number": 56, "title": "CO129-547-8 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 22-3-1934 - 14-12-1934", "content_text": "## No. 2\n**Judgment of Wood, Acting C.J. delivered 1st April, 1931** -continued.\n\n10 ment of the Privy Council in **The Attorney General for the Colony of Hong Kong v. Kwok A Sing** (supra at p. 199), from which judgment I quote the following opinion of the Judicial Committee:-\n\n\"They see no reason to doubt that the charge of Sir Charles Hedges, Judge of the High Court of Admiralty, to the grand jury, as reported in the case of **Rex v. Dawson** (13 State Trials, 454) and which was made in the presence and with the approval of Holt C.J. and several other common law judges, contains a correct exposition of the law as to what constitutes piracy jure gentium.” He there says \"piracy is only a sea term for robbery, piracy being a robbery within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty\".\n\n\"If the mariners of any ship shall violently dispossess the master and afterwards carry away the ship itself or any of the goods, with a felonious intention in any place where the Lord Admiral hath jurisdiction, this is robbery and piracy.\" The standard forms of indictments contained in Archbold's Criminal Pleading include an allegation of stealing. In the records of this court there are two interesting indictments to which I have drawn attention. They are connected with what are locally known as the Sunning and the Haiching piracies. Both indictments were laid under 1 Vict., c. 88, s. 2, which deals with certain violent acts connected with the crime of piracy. The distinguishing feature between these two occurrences was that in the case of the Sunning the prisoners succeeded in dispossessing the master and obtaining control of the ship (which was subsequently retaken from them by the gallant action of the ship's officers), while the attack upon the Haiching was foiled and the attackers at no time controlled the bridge. The indictment in connection with the Sunning was filed in March, 1927, and that in connection with the Haiching in February, 1930. Both indictments were filed by the present learned Chief Justice, Sir Joseph Kemp, who was then Attorney General. He charged the first set of prisoners with \"Piracy with assault with intent to murder\". In the particulars of offence he set out the acts of violence and after so doing proceeded \"and then and there committed the crime of piracy in respect of the said ship by stealing with force and violence the said ship\". By way of contrast the later indictment alleged \"wounding persons on board a ship with intent to commit piracy\" and the particulars of the offence corresponded with this statement. It would thus appear that at the time when these two indictments were drafted, the draftsman gave effect to the opinion that the stealing of the ship constituted an essential element in the crime of piracy.\n\n1st April, 1931 -continued.\n\nLeaving the records of the courts, I now come to the consideration of the term \"piracy\" as it has been used in the statutes dealing with piracy (other than municipal piracy). It was not necessary for the learned Attorney General to argue, nor did he do so, that cruising with a piratical object by itself rendered a pirate liable to be punished by international law in national courts. Still less that the status and reputation of a pirate was such as to render him amenable to this court. It has been agreed by the learned Attorney General, in presenting the view of the crown, that in order to constitute the crime of piracy for the purpose of these proceedings, there must have been present not only a piratical mind, but also a piratical act. The enquiry necessitated here will seek, in the language of the statutes, to ascertain the nature of the requisite act; and for the purpose of the question of law here under consideration, the issue has been narrowed to discussion whether violence for the purpose of robbery is by itself enough or whether further a completed robbery is required. This enquiry may be usefully prosecuted by study of statutes passed in England to supplement the common law relating to piracy. That not every piratical act brings the offender within reach of the common law may be inferred from the language of \"An Act for the more effectual suppression of Piracy,\" 11 William III, c. 7, s. 8, which provides: \"If any commander or master of any ship shall in any place where the Admiral hath jurisdiction turn pirate and piratically and feloniously run away with his ship... he shall be adjudged, deemed and taken to be a pirate, felon and robber and being convicted thereof according to the directions of this Act shall have and suffer pains of death as pirates, felons and robbers upon the seas ought to have and suffer.\" By the same section it was provided also that \"If any person shall lay violent hands on his commander whereby to hinder him from fighting in defence of his ship and goods committed to his trust or that shall confine his master or make or endeavour to make a revolt in the ship he shall be similarly punished. The legislature here declared certain acts to be piratical in character and yet at the same time found it necessary to provide by statute for their punishment. It is even more interesting to note that in the Piracy Act, 1721, 8 George I, c. 24, s. 1, it was enacted that \"In case any person or persons belonging to any ship or vessel whatsoever, upon meeting any merchant ship or vessel upon the high seas or in any port, haven or creek whatsoever, shall forcibly board or enter into such ship or vessel and though they...", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-547-8 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 22-3-1934 - 14-12-1934.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 587087, "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": "CO129-604-7 Expulsion of Undesirables Ordinance 1949 19-8-1949 - 16-12-1949", "page_number": 65, "title": "CO129-604-7 Expulsion of Undesirables Ordinance 1949 19-8-1949 - 16-12-1949", "content_text": "Liability not to be affected by opinion, etc., of Chinese authority.\n\nA declaration, opinion, or discretion, which the Governor is authorised by this Ordinance to make, form, or exercise, respectively.\n\n20. A fugitive criminal shall be liable to be surrendered under this Ordinance in accordance with the provisions of section 12, although the crime of which he is accused may have been committed within the jurisdiction of a Chinese authority other than the Chinese authority by whom the requisition was made, or other than the Chinese authority to whom he is to be surrendered; and although the Chinese authority to whom he is to be surrendered is not the Chinese authority by whom the requisition was made.\n\n## FIRST SCHEDULE.\n\n(s. 2.)\n\n## LIST OF EXTADITION CRIMES.\n\n1. Murder and attempt to murder.\n\n2. Manslaughter.\n\n3. Malicious wounding.\n\n4. Counterfeiting or altering money, or uttering or bringing into circulation counterfeit or altered money.\n\n5. Forgery, or counterfeiting, or altering, or uttering what is forged, or counterfeited, or altered, comprehending the crimes designated in the laws of the Colony as counterfeiting or falsification of paper money, bank notes, or other securities; forgery or other falsification of other public or private documents; likewise the uttering, or bringing into circulation, or wilfully using such counterfeited, forged, or falsified papers.\n\n6. Embezzlement or larceny.\n\n7. Receiving stolen goods.\n\n8. Obtaining money or goods by false pretences.\n\n9. Crimes against bankruptcy law.\n\n10. Fraud committed by a bailee, banker, agent, factor, trustee, or director, or manager or public officer of any company, made criminal by any law for the time being in force.\n\n11. Rape.\n\n12. Abduction.\n\n13. Child-stealing.\n\n14. Kidnapping.\n\n15. Perjury, also subornation, also conspiracy to commit perjury, or to procure the commission of perjury, or to utter or use in any judicial proceedings any deposition, affidavit, or other document knowing the same to be false or forged, or to be perjured or forged.\n\n16. Burglary or housebreaking.\n\n17. Arson.\n\nAs amended by No.17 of 1927 (18.10.27).", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-604-7 Expulsion of Undesirables Ordinance 1949 19-8-1949 - 16-12-1949.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 } ]