[ { "id": 282728, "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": "CO129-146 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1870 [10-12]", "page_number": 366, "title": "CO129-146 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1870 [10-12]", "content_text": "## THE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 16TH APRIL, 1870.\n\n### WEATHER TABLES FOR THE PAST WEEK.\n\n#### REGISTER AT HARBOR MASTER'S OFFICE, PRAYA WEST.\n\n| Date | 9 A.M. | NOON | 6 P.M. | Thermometer | Barometer | Self Registering |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| April 9 | 30.02 | 30.00 | 30.04 | 67, 71, 64, 78 | | Min: 64, Max: 78 |\n| April 10 | 30.05 | 30.09 | 30.03 | 68, 67, 74 | | Min: 65, Max: 82 |\n| April 11 | 30.05 | 30.08 | 30.01 | 68, 82, 68, 82 | | Min: 68, Max: 84 |\n| April 12 | 30.06 | 30.08 | 30.03 | 67, 69, 68, 84 | | Min: 67, Max: 84 |\n| April 13 | 29.97 | 29.92 | 29.90 | 65, 71, 65, 71 | | Min: 66, Max: 71 |\n| April 14 | 29.91 | 29.91 | 29.84 | 82, 75, 67, 76 | | Min: 67, Max: 76 |\n| April 15 | 29.86 | 29.90 | 29.83 | 73, 88, 70, 87 | | Min: 70, Max: 88 |\n\n#### REGISTER AT BLOCK HOUSE, VICTORIA PEAK.\n\nHeight above Sea Level 1,770 feet.\n\n| Date | 9 A.M. | NOON | 6 P.M. | Dry Bulb | Wet Bulb | Self Registering | Winds | Rain |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| April 9 | 28.31 | 28.30 | 28.29 | 64.0, 69.0 | 61.0, 61.9 | Min: 61.0, Max: 72.6 | E, 6 | 0.00 |\n| April 10 | 28.25 | 28.27 | 28.26 | 61.0, 65.0 | 59.0, 62.0 | Min: 59.0, Max: 65.0 | E, 6 | 0.00 |\n| April 11 | 28.31 | 28.34 | 28.32 | 63.0, 67.6 | 62.0, 64.0 | Min: 47.0, Max: 81.6 | E, 1 | 4.30 |\n| April 12 | 28.35 | 28.37 | 28.30 | 61.0, 62.5 | 61.5, 61.6 | Min: 61.5, Max: 69.6 | E, 3 | 0.00 |\n| April 13 | 28.20 | 28.25 | 28.15 | 62.0, 65.0 | 61.0, 62.0 | Min: 61.0, Max: 81.0 | E, 6 | 0.05 |\n| April 14 | 28.20 | 28.14 | 28.15 | 61.0, 68.0 | 61.0, 67.0 | Min: 61.0, Max: 68.0 | E, 3 | 0.70 |\n| April 15 | 28.15 | 28.17 | 28.10 | 69.0, 71.6 | 68.0, 70.0 | Min: 68.0, Max: 88.0 | SW, 6 | 9.00 |\n\n### NOTICE.\n\nFROM and after the 18th instant, the Sittings of the Supreme Court, for the hearing of all Cases, Civil and Criminal, will be held at the temporary Court situated in the premises formerly in the occupation of Messrs. RUSSELL & Co., No. 7, Queen's Road Central.\n\nBy Order of the Court,\n**W. H. ALEXANDER**,\nRegistrar.\n\nHongkong, 13th April, 1870.\n\n### NOTICE.\n\nTHE next Criminal Sessions of the Supreme Court will be held, by direction of the Chief Justice, on Tuesday, the 18th instant, at 10 A.M., instead of Monday, the 18th instant.\n\nBy Order,\n**W. H. ALEXANDER**,\nRegistrar.\n\nSupreme Court House,\nNo. 7, Queen's Road Central,\nHongkong, 16th April, 1870.\n\n### COURT OF SUMMARY JURISDICTION.\n\nTHE next sitting of the above named Court will be held on Thursday, the 21st instant, at 10 o'clock A.M.\n\nBy Order of the Court,\n**HENRY J. HOLMES**,\nClerk of Court.\n\nHongkong, 16th April, 1870.\n\n### In re ANDREW COCHRANE, M.D., deceased.\n\nNOTICE--All Claims against the above Estate must be proved before the Official Administrator, on or before Monday, the 10th day of October, A.D. 1870, otherwise they will not be included in the Scheme of Division.\n\nAll Persons indebted to the said Estates are requested to make immediate payment to **W. H. ALEXANDER**, Registrar.\n\nHongkong, 6th April, 1870.\n\n### MEMORANDUM OF ENTRY OF A DEED.\n\n1. Title of Deed: Deed of Assignment and Release.\n2. Date of Deed: The Eleventh day of April in the Year of our Lord One thousand Eight hundred and Seventy.\n3. Date of Execution by Debtor: The Eleventh day of April in the Year of our Lord One thousand Eight hundred and Seventy.\n4. Name and description of the Debtor: Jules Cheramy, of Victoria in the Island of Hongkong, Cook and Hotel-keeper.\n5. Name and description of the Trustee: Victor Boulland, of Victoria in the Island of Hongkong, Merchant.\n6. Nature of the Deed: Assignment of the Estate and Effects of the Debtor upon trust to sell, dispose of, realize, collect, and receive the same.\n\n### NOTICE.\n\nThe partnership heretofore subsisting between the undersigned HYMAN ELIAS, NEY ELIAS, and GEORGE BARNET under the firms of ELIAS & Co. in London and GEORGE BARNET & Co. in Shanghai, China, is this day dissolved by mutual consent.\n\nDated this 31st day of March, 1870.\n\n(Signed) **H. ELIAS**, **N. ELIAS**, **GEO. BARNET**.\n\nWith reference to the above, we hereby give notice that we have made arrangements to continue the business, combined with that of public Silk Inspectors under the firm of ELIAS & Co. in London and GEORGE BARNET & Co. in Shanghai.\n\n**ELLIS ELIAS** will conduct the business in London and **EDWARD WILLIAM BATT** in China.\n\n**ELLIS ELIAS**, **EDWARD WILLIAM BATT**.\nShanghai, 1st April, 1870.\n\n### NOTICE.\n\nTHE business hitherto carried on by the undersigned on the premises known as the \"Victoria Foundry,\" Spring Gardens, Hongkong, under the style or firm of MCDOUGALL AND COMPANY, has this day been transferred to Mr. **JOHN INGLIS**, who will conduct and carry on the same from this date on his sole responsibility.\n\n**S. SPEECHLEY**.\nHongkong, 16th April, A.D. 1870.\n\n### NOTICE.\n\nMR. MAW is admitted a Partner in our Firm on the 1st of January last.\n\n**TURNER & Co.**,\nHongkong, 10th March, 1870.\n\n### NOTICE.\n\nMR. R. Joo HENRIQUE DOS REMEDIOS is authorised to sign our Firm per procuration from this day.\n\n**J. J. DOS REMEDIOS & Co.**,\nHongkong, 1st January, 1870.\n\n### NOTICE.\n\nTHE interest and responsibility of Mr. **WIL PROBST** in our firm ceased on the 31st of December 1868, and Mr. **OTTO CHRISTIAN BRUN** and Mr. **JOHANNES F. CORDES** are admitted Partners therein from this date.\n\nMr. **F. LANCKEN** and Mr. **C. W. SIEGFRIED**, have been authorized to sign our Firm per procuration.\n\n**WM. PUSTAU & Co.**,\nChina, 1st January, 1870.\n\n### NOTICE.\n\nIn the Estate of **HENRY DAVIES MARGESSON**, deceased.\n\nLETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION with the Will annexed, of the Estate of **HENRY DAVIES MARGESSON**, late of Hongkong and Macao, Merchant deceased, having been granted by the Supreme Court of Hongkong in its Probate Jurisdiction to the Undersigned as Attorneys for the Executors, all persons indebted to the said Estate are hereby required to pay the amount of their Debts to the undersigned without delay, and all persons having claims against the said Estate are required to send in particulars thereof, with vouchers, to the undersigned (addressed to the care of T. G. Linstead), on or before the Thirtieth day of June next, after which date no claims will be admitted.\n\nDated the Third day of December, A.D., 1869.\n\n**W. KESWICK**, **T. G. LINSTEAD**, Administrators.\n\n### NOTICE.\n\nMR. **WILLIAM GEORGE PRICE** is authorised to sign our Firm in Foochow from this date.\n\n**GILMAN & Co.**,\nHongkong, 17th July, 1869.\n\n### NOTICE.\n\nTHE interest and responsibility of Mr. **GEORG WILHELM SCHWEMANN** and of Mr. **RUDOLPH HEINSEN** in our Firm ceased on the 31st December, 1867, and 31st December, 1868, respectively.\n\n### NOTICE.\n\nEstate of **DENT & Co.** First Dividend of Ten per centum upon the amount of all Claims admitted by the Trustees will be paid on the 1st of January, next.\n\nOn application to the undersigned at the Office of the Trustees, Pedder's Hill, Creditors will be furnished with Warrants signed by the Trustees which will be payable on presentation at the Office of the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation.\n\nBy order of the Trustees,\n**B. WHEELEY**,\nHongkong, 28th November, 1868.\n\n### NOTICE.\n\nTHE interest and responsibility of Mr. **JAMES BENJAMIN DEACON** in our Firm ceased on the 31st December, 1868, and Mr. **STUART DRACON** is this day admitted a Partner.\n\n**DEACON & Co.**,\nCanton, 1st January, 1869.\n\n### UNIVERSAL MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED.\n\nTHE undersigned, having been appointed Agents for the above Company at this Port, Shanghai, Foochow, Hankow, and Yokohama, are prepared to accept Marine Risks at Current Rates.\n\n**GILMAN & Co.**, Agents.\nHongkong, 21st September, 1868.\n\n### FOR SALE.\n\nA few Copies of French and Spanish Dictionary.\n\nApply to\n**NORONHA & SONS**.\nHongkong, 20th January, 1870.\n\n### NOTICE.\n\nWE have established a Branch of our firm at Bombay in connection with Mr. **M. A. DOS REMEDIOS** of Macao, under the name and style of **REMEDIOS BROTHERS & Co.**.\n\nMr. **ANTONIO DOS REMEDIOS** and Mr. **ALEXANDRE ANTONIO DOS REMEDIOS** were admitted partners therein.\n\n**J. J. DOS REMEDIOS & Co.**,\nHongkong, 1st January, 1870.\n\n### NOTICE.\n\nIn the Estate of **DOUGLAS LAPRAIK**, deceased.\n\nPROBATE of the last Will and Testament of **DOUGLAS LAPRAIK**, formerly of Hongkong and lately of Acton, deceased, having been granted to the undersigned one of the Executors in the said Will named, all persons indebted to the said Estate are hereby required to pay the amount of their debts forthwith. Persons having claims against the Estate are hereby required to send in particulars of their claims to the undersigned at the Office of Messrs. Douglas Lapraik & Co. or to **Henry C. Caldwell**, Esq., Solicitor, on or before the Thirty-first day of January.\n\n**MR. ROBERT HESBY GRANT, lately a Clerk in the Naval Yard, Hongkong**.\n\n### NOTICE.\n\nMR. **PAUL GERHARD HUBRE**, and Mr. **ALBERT GULTZOW** have been authorised to sign our firm here and in China from this date.\n\n**SIEMSSEN & Co.**,\nHongkong, November 1, 1869.\n\n### NOTICE.\n\nALL Persons indebted to the Estate of the late **JNO. J. FRANCIS**, Solicitor for **John D. Macdonald Thomson**, Executor, are requested to make payment, and all persons having claims against the said Estate are notified to send in their claims to the undersigned without delay.\n\n**JNO. J. FRANCIS**,\nSolicitor for\n**John D. Macdonald Thomson**,\nExecutor.\nHongkong, 3rd April, A.D., 1869.\n\n### THE JAPAN TELEGRAPH.\n\nPublished in connection with the **JAPAN HERALD**.\n\nAN EIGHT PAGE PAPER,\nSPECIALLY COMPILED AS\nA COMMERCIAL SUMMARY, A POLITICAL REVIEW,\nGENERAL EPITOME\nAND\nOF\nHOME NEWS FOR THE FAR EAST.\n\nSUBSCRIPTION, $6.00 YEARLY, Post free from London direct, payable in advance.\n\nCopies may be had, and Subscriptions received at the **HERALD OFFICE**, Yokohama, or at the following Agencies:-\n\nYokohama...... **Messrs. A. Manks & Co.**,\nShanghai,...... **Messrs. Foes & Co.**,\nHongkong,...... **NORONHA & SONS**.\n\nYokohama, 24 February, 1870.\n\n### NOTICE.\n\nTHE Undersigned have been appointed Agents at this Port for the Liverpool Underwriters' Association.\n\n**GILMAN & Co.**,\nHongkong, 7th March, 1868.\n\n### NOTICE.\n\nMR. **JAMES HART** is authorized to sign our Firm per procuration in Hongkong.\n\n**E. H. HOW & Co.**,\nFoochow, March, 1869.\n\n### NOTICE.\n\nTHE Business hitherto carried on by Messrs. **E. H. How & Co.** was on the 1st January, 1869, amalgamated with that of Mr. **R. R. WESTALL** on this day, and will be continued under the Style or Firm of **WESTALL, GALTON & Co.**.\n\n**WAHEE, SMITH & Co.**,\nEast Point.\n\n### NOTICE.\n\nMR. **LEONARD STAËL** has been admitted a Partner in our Firm, and is authorised to sign our Firm, per procuration, from this date.\n\n**WESTALL, GALTON & Co.**,\nFoochow, March, 1869.\n\n### NOTICE.\n\nMR. **EMIL VOGEL** and Mr. **HEINRICH KIRCHHOFF** become this day Partners in our business, which in future will be carried on under the Firm of **VOGEL, HAGEDORN & Co.**, both here and at Canton.\n\n**HAGEDORN & Co.**,\nHongkong, 12th February, 1868.\n\n### NOTICE.\n\nTHE business of **KINNEAR & Co.**, Foochow, will be carried on from and after this date under the style and firm of **KINNEAR, LARKEN & Co.**, the partners therein being Mr. **WILLIAM BALFOUR KINNEAR** and Mr. **THOMAS LANCASTER LARKEN**.\n\n**WILLIAM BALFOUR KINNEAR**,\nFoochow, 1st May, 1869.\n\n### NOW READY AND FOR SALE.\n\nTables shewing the proposed movements of the Contract Packets of the P. & O. S. N. Co. during 1870.\n\n**NORONHA & SONS**,\nHongkong, 4th December, 1869.\n\n### TO LET.\n\nHouses in Mosque Street, commanding a full view of the Harbor,\nRENTS MODERATE,\n\nApply to\n**H. L. NORONHA**.\nHongkong, February, 1870.\n\nPrinted and Published by **NORONHA & SONS**, Printers to the Hongkong Government, at No. 1, \"HOLLYWOOD ROAD,\" Hongkong.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-146 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1870 [10-12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 290173, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-161 - Public Offices - 1872", "page_number": 337, "title": "CO129-161 - Public Offices - 1872", "content_text": "In Hong Kong the necessity for a simple Process for the recovery of Small Debts soon became apparent, and a Summary Jurisdiction was conferred by Ordinance upon the Supreme Court in cases where the sum in dispute did not exceed five hundred dollars. The increase in the population and trade of the colony soon called for further Legislation in this direction, and Ordinance No. 7 of 1862 was passed, under which a separate Court of Summary Jurisdiction was established with a Common Law Jurisdiction up to five hundred dollars. The Judge of this Court is liable to be called upon by the Chief Justice to try or hear any causes or matters depending in the Supreme Court, subject in all cases to an appeal to the Chief Justice from any judgment or order he may pronounce.\n\nIt will be observed that the Judge of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction is not a Judge of the Supreme Court, but is at the beck and call of the Chief Justice, who can order him to transact his business for him whenever he pleases. This is a very unsatisfactory provision and adds to the expense of litigation, as the unsuccessful party can appeal to the Chief Justice, and is obliged to do so if he contemplates an appeal to the Privy Council.\n\nThe Court of Summary Jurisdiction is in fact similar to an English County Court without the Equity, Bankruptcy, Probate, and Admiralty Jurisdictions, which are possessed by the latter, and therefore unless the matter involved be purely the subject of an action at Common Law the litigants must still resort to the lengthy and costly process of the Supreme Court, however small may be the sum in dispute.\n\nI am convinced that a Reform in the Constitution, Jurisdiction, and Procedure of the Supreme Court would be attended with the most beneficial results. The colony of Hong Kong has undergone a marked change in many respects during the last five years. Formerly the great trade of the place was in the hands of a few leading firms of great wealth. Since the commercial crisis of 1865, and the collapse of some of the most important mercantile houses, a great portion of the trade of the colony has become distributed among numerous small firms of all nationalities. Public Companies have been formed with limited liability, for a variety of purposes, such as Banking, Marine Insurance, Steam Navigation, Docks, Piers, Distilleries, Refineries, &c. There is an eager competition for business, and constant disputes arise which require adjustment by a simple, expeditious, and cheap process of Law, instead of the slow, ponderous, intricate, and expensive machinery of the Supreme Court, which is found so ill suited to the present rapid pace of commercial life in China, that no one dreams of venturing into Court, who can possibly settle his case by arbitration or compromise. The consequence has been that nearly all the Members of the local Bar have by degrees retired from the colony.\n\nWith regard to Admiralty Proceedings there is undoubtedly an urgent necessity for reform. The Supreme Court of Hong Kong exercises that Jurisdiction as a mere branch of the High Court of Admiralty, and the Colonial Government has no power to legislate on this subject. It is clear, however, that a Summary Jurisdiction in Admiralty for small causes is most urgently required, and has long been pressed upon the attention of the Government, owing to the cases of hardship which frequently arise; as, for instance, where a junk of small value is found derelict, or in the possession of pirates, the expense of obtaining its restoration to the owner is often as great as its value.\n\nThere are various other matters connected with the administration of the Law, to which I shall refer after dealing with the most important of all, namely, that which relates to the Civil Procedure and to the Constitution of the Supreme Court.\n\nFirstly,--As regards Civil Procedure.\n\nA simple, expeditious, and cheap system of Procedure are attractive words, and sound, perhaps, somewhat utopian. It must be remembered, however, that the colony of Hong Kong is behind the age in this respect, having regard to the success which has attended the introduction of the Civil Code of Procedure for India. The Indian Code is the ground work upon which the Rules of Her Majesty's Supreme Court for China and Japan were framed, and it is remarkable that the Report of the Judicature Commission recommends the adoption of substantially the same system in England.\n\nI enclose copies, firstly, of the Indian Code of Civil Procedure; secondly, of the Rules of Her Majesty's Supreme Court for China and Japan; thirdly, of the first Report of the Judicature Commission; and fourthly, of a Draft Code of Procedure which I recently framed, and which is modelled on the Indian Code and the Rules of Her Majesty's Supreme Court for China and Japan. Owing to my sudden departure from the colony in September last, on account of illness, this draft is in a very crude state, and indeed is merely the first uncorrected proof from the printer; but it is intended to form a complete system of Practice and Procedure, both at Law and in Equity. The only subject which is omitted is that of Interpleader; but I have it in manuscript, and can supply it at any time if required.\n\nThe division of this Draft Code which is headed \"Foreign Attachment,\" is one of considerable importance, and is intended as an amendment of the very imperfect Law of Foreign Attachment.\n\nEnclosures\n\n1. Memorandum on the Admiralty Jurisdiction\n\n2. Indian Code of Civil Procedure\n\n3. Rules of H.M. Supreme Court for China and Japan\n\n4. First Report of the Judicature Commission\n\nDraft Code of Civil Procedure for Hong Kong", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-161 - Public Offices - 1872.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 291353, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-164 - Sir Kennedy - 1873 [7-9]", "page_number": 32, "title": "CO129-164 - Sir Kennedy - 1873 [7-9]", "content_text": "# CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE\n\n## DIVISION OF THE CODE AND TABULAR INDEX\n\n## INTRODUCTION\n\n**TITLE OF ORDINANCE**, \n**PREAMBLE**, \n**SHORT TITLE**, \n**INTERPRETATION OF TERMS**, \n**SAVING CLAUSE**, \nRights of the Crown, \nOrder in Council of 9th of March, 1865,... \nJurisdiction of Supreme Court, \nCourts of Vice-Admiralty, Probate, and Bankruptcy,. \nPending suits, \nApplication of Code thereto, \n**OLD PROCEDURE SUSPENDED**, \n**NEW PROCEDURE UNDER THE CODE**..... \n**OLD PROCEDURE MADE AUXILIARY THERETO IN CERTAIN CASES**\n\n## PART 1\n\n### FROM THE INSTITUTION OF A SUIT TO THE HEARING\n\n#### CHAPTER I\n\n##### THE INSTITUTION OF SUITS\n\n*REGISTER OF CIVIL SUITS*, ..... \nHow to be kept, \n**ATTORNEYS AND AGENTS**, \nPower of Attorney or other authority when to be filed. \nWhen copy may be filed, \nTerms of authority, \nPenalty for acting without, \n**SERVICE OF PROCESS**, \nSundays and holidays, \nPersonal service, \nService on attorney, \nOther modes of service by order of Court, \nService on Government servants, officers and soldiers, \nOn British Corporations and Companies, ... \nOn Foreign Corporations and Companies, \nOn Defendant's agent within the jurisdiction, \nOn Defendant out of the jurisdiction, \nOrder for service through Post Offices or otherwise, \nOrder for service may be varied, \n**SUITS TO BE COMMENCED BY WRIT OF SUMMONS**, \nPraecipe for writ, \nBy whom prepared, \nContents of writ, \nWrit to be tested and dated, \nNot to be altered without leave, \n**OF SUMMONING THE DEFENDANT**, \nCopy to be served, \nMemorandum to be endorsed, \n**APPEARANCE**, \nDefendant must appear within 8 days, \n**CONSEQUENCES OF NON-APPEARANCE**, \nProceedings ex parte, \nAppearance on subsequent day,. Court may issue warrant of arrest, \n**WRITS SPECIALLY ENDORSED**, \nIn what cases, \nJudgment by default of appearance, Leave to defend-notwithstanding, Proceedings in case of appearance, \nCases of ordinary account, Summary order for inquiries on accounts,\n\n| Para- graph. | Section. | Page, |\n|------------|----------|-------|\n| 4 | 3 | 4 |\n| 22 | 10 | 20 |\n| o to co | co | to E |\n| 6 | G | G |\n| 9 | 15 | 10 |\n| 5 | 13 | 9 |\n| 9 | & | B |\n| 程 | # | 10 |\n| 6 | 11 | 6 |\n| 30 | | |", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-164 - Sir Kennedy - 1873 [7-9].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 304182, "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": 127, "title": "CO129-185 - Acting Governor Marsh Governor Hennessy - 1879 [6-12]", "content_text": "## AN ORDINANCE FOR REGULATING THE ADMINISTRATION OF INTESTATE ESTATES, AND FOR THE DISPOSAL OF UNCLAIMED BALANCES OF THE ESTATES OF PERSONS DYING INTESTATE WITHIN THE COLONY OF HONGKONG.\n\n**ORDINANCE NO. 8 OF 1870**\n\n### Sections I to VI\n\nNo Action shall be brought against any Person for anything done by him in relation to such Property under the Authority or in the Execution or intended Execution of the Powers vested in him by this Ordinance, but any Person who shall feel aggrieved thereby may apply for Redress to the Supreme Court in its Probate Jurisdiction by Summary Petition verified upon Oath or Declaration.\n\nAny Person who shall destroy, conceal or refuse to yield up such Property on Demand to the Official Administrator, shall be guilty of a Misdemeanor and shall be liable, on Summary Conviction thereof before a Magistrate, to a Fine not exceeding Five hundred Dollars with or without Imprisonment, not exceeding Six Months.\n\n## Sections VI to X\n\nVI. No Action shall be brought against the Official Administrator for anything done by him in relation to such Property under the Authority or in the Execution or intended Execution of the Powers vested in him by Section IV, but any Person who shall feel aggrieved thereby may apply for Redress to the Supreme Court in its Probate Jurisdiction by Summary Petition verified upon Oath or Declaration and upon the Hearing of such Petition in Court or in Chambers, and whether in Vacation or not, the said Court may take such Evidence as it shall think fit, and may make Order in relation to such Property which the Justice of the Case requires.\n\nVII. The Official Administrator shall have a Lien upon all such Property for the reasonable Expenses incurred by him in respect thereof in carrying out the Provisions of Section IV, and such Expenses shall also constitute a primary Charge on the Estate of the Deceased.\n\nVIII. When any Person shall die leaving a Will within the Colony, the Person in whose keeping it shall have been deposited or who shall find such Will after the Testator's Death, shall produce and if required shall deliver the same to the Official Administrator within Fourteen Days of the Death of the Testator or of the Time when he shall have had Notice thereof, or from the Time of the finding of the Will, as the Case may be, and any Person who shall fail to comply with the Provisions of this Section shall be guilty of a Misdemeanor and shall be liable upon Summary Conviction thereof, to a Fine not exceeding Five hundred Dollars.\n\nIX. Whenever any Person being a Native of China shall die Intestate leaving Property within the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and it shall be necessary to obtain Proof of the Law of China for the Purpose of regulating the Administration of the Property of such deceased Person according to the Law of his Domicil, it shall be lawful for the Supreme Court, in its Discretion, to receive in Evidence any written Statement of the Law of China, which shall be certified by any British Consul in China under his Official Seal to have been obtained by him from the Chinese Government for the Purposes of such Administration, and with Reference to the Facts of the particular Case under Consideration.\n\nX. The Chief Justice may, from Time to Time, frame General Rules or Orders to be approved by the Legislative Council, for the following Purposes, and with the like Approval, may rescind or vary the same:\n| Purpose |\n| --- |\n| 1. For regulating the Practice and Procedure of the Supreme Court, and the several Forms of Petitions, Orders, and other Proceedings to be used in the Court in its Probate Jurisdiction. |\n| 2. For regulating the Duties of the various Officers of the Supreme Court, in its Probate Jurisdiction. |\n| 3. For regulating the Fees payable and the Charges and Costs to be allowed with Respect to all Proceedings before the Supreme Court, in its Probate Jurisdiction. |\n| 4. For reprinting the Filing, Custody, and Inspection of Records, and generally for carrying the Provisions of Ordinance No. 8 of 1860, and of this Ordinance into Effect. |\n\nXI. If any Case should arise which shall not have been expressly provided for by the General Rules or Orders to be made in Pursuance of the last preceding Section, but for which Provision has been made by the Rules or Orders for the Time being in Force in the Court of Probate in England, the Court may, in its Discretion, apply to such Case any of such last mentioned Rules and Orders, and until such General Rules and Orders shall have been made as aforesaid, the Court may direct that the Rules and Orders now in Force or which may hereafter be in Force in the Court of Probate in England or any Part thereof, and the Forms of Proceedings in Use therein, or any of them, subject to their Applicability and with such Modifications as the Circumstances require, shall be followed and adopted in the Supreme Court in its Probate Jurisdiction.\n\nXII. Nothing herein contained shall affect any other Remedy or Punishment which may now by Law exist for any Act done in Contravention of the Provisions of this Ordinance.\n\nPassed the Legislative Council of Hongkong, this 19th Day of August, 1870.\n\n## ANNO DECIMO OCTAVO VICTORIÆ REGINÆ. No. 6 of 1854.\n\n**AN ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE FOR THE DISPOSAL OF UNCLAIMED BALANCES OF THE ESTATES OF PERSONS DYING INTESTATE WITHIN THE COLONY OF HONGKONG.**\n\nBY the Honourable Lieutenant-Colonel WILLIAM CAINE, Lieutenant-Governor administering the Government of the Colony of Hongkong and its Dependencies, with the Advice of the Legislative Council of Hongkong.\n\n[31st October, 1854.]\n\nWHEREAS certain sums of money have been for many years past and now are lying in custody of the Officers in charge of the Public Treasure Vault of this Colony, which sums have been delivered to such custody by the Official Administrator of Intestate Estates as unclaimed Balances of certain such Estates, after full satisfaction according to scheme of division of all claims proved against such Estates, and in pursuance of the terms of `Ordinance No. 6 of 1845`; and whereas it is expedient to dispose of such sums of money for the public use and the benefit of this Colony :\n\nI. Be it therefore enacted and ordained by the Honorable the Lieutenant-Governor administering the Government of Hongkong, with the Advice of the Legislative Council thereof, that on the expiration of six years from the date of the decease of any Person dying Intestate, it shall be lawful for the Officer administering the Government of this Colony to direct the payment of the unclaimed Balance of such person's Estate into the hands of the Colonial Treasurer, for the general purposes of the Colony, or the transfer of such Balance to the Public Funds held by the officers in charge of the Treasure Vault, so that it may be rendered available for the public purposes of the Colony; Provided always that a certificate be given by the Official Administrator of Intestate Estates showing that due advertisement has been made for claims against such Estate, and for claims against such Balance of such Estate, and that, so far as is known to such Official Administrator, no further claim can reasonably be expected against such Balance of such Estate.\n\nII. And be it further enacted and ordained, that from and after the passing of this Ordinance all such Balances as have lain in the Treasure Vault of the Colony for a longer period than six years, shall and may be at once appropriated by the Officer administering the Government in manner aforesaid, after the production of the certificate of the Official Administrator of Intestate Estates to the effect above specified.\n\nIII. And be it further enacted and ordained, that at the expiration of the fifth year of such moneys remaining unclaimed, it shall be necessary for the Official Administrator to cause advertisements to be published both in this Colony and in the Mother Country of the deceased to the effect that if no claimant appear within twelve months to the funds in question, the Supreme Court of this Colony on motion made on that behalf by the Colonial Government will declare such funds confiscated for Colonial purposes, and that whether any claimant appear or not, the expenses attendant on such advertisements be deducted from the funds advertised.\n\nIV. And be it further enacted and ordained, that it shall be lawful for the Officer administering the Government in his discretion to direct that all or any unclaimed Balances as aforesaid at any time previous to the expiration of six years as aforesaid, be lodged in a chartered Bank within this Colony, at such rate of interest as may be procurable, and that the amount of such interest shall be added to, and considered portion of such unclaimed Balance as aforesaid.\n\nV. And be it further enacted and ordained, that this Ordinance shall not come into operation until Her Majesty's Pleasure shall be known with respect thereto.\n\nPassed the Legislative Council of Hongkong, this 31st Day of October, 1854.\n\nL. D'ALMADA & Castro, \nClerk of Councils.\n\nW. CAINE. \nPage 126 \n`(REGo 20 DFC 79)`", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-185 - Acting Governor Marsh Governor Hennessy - 1879 [6-12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 305166, "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": "CO129-186 - Public Offices & Others - 1879", "page_number": 425, "title": "CO129-186 - Public Offices & Others - 1879", "content_text": "## MINUTE PAPER\n\n**R** Memo - a that summary – without details Wt Dates of th\n\nA Registrar is wanted for the Supreme Court\n\nTwo Judges.\n\n(Monetary)\n\nof Hong Kong - which proposes a structure.\n\nThe Supreme Court has various duties with jurisdictions which in England are discharged by the several Divisions of the High Court of Judicature, and The Admiralty Division.\n\nAdmiralty matters are dealt with by the Judges of The Supreme Court in the Vice Admiralty Court, which is regulated not by Colonial Ordinance but by Imperial Statutes.\n\nThe Registrar with his subordinates discharges the duties of the Registrars, masters, including the master of the Supreme Court, & chief clerks & other officials who form the staff of the English Courts, under the provisions of Local Ordinances, of which the principal is a Court Ordinance. He is also Registrar of Companies under the Joint Stock Companies Ordinance (No.5 of 1864), under which he is also Official Assignee in Bankruptcy, and an ordinary adopting of the Joint Stock Companies Act of the English act of 1862 (which having a Registrar in Bankruptcy, as under that act). Part of his duty is to conduct the examinations in Bankruptcy.\n\nThe Registrar is also Official Administrator & intestate Estates, Collecting and distributing the property in cases when Administration is not taken out by any relative or creditor (Order 8.4.1860).\n\nGovernment especially which should be done by the Supreme Court is that the incidence of probate duty that the income...\n\nCost to let us amend this amount what the Government collects by the shape of not the case the question of fees and duties but even of these...\n\nSupreme Court as compared with the other Colonies are small. Authors and others 20 bear...\n\nI be of your RECE C.O. 16 SEP 6/81 Sept 18. 412 Knowledge receipt of 15 August, enclosing report of lately appointed Commission to enquire into and stunning Kong...\n\nForemost recommendations for amendment have been considered amongst other things...\n\nregards to the respects custom duty and disbursement...\n\nI property charges of Supreme Court you store anche...\n\nThe Registrar and the Supreme Court has various duties with Commissioner...\n\n`62/018771`\n\nPage ...\n\nThe practice and the twin increased cost which have been considered necessary slight...\n\n... \nRECE C.O. 16 SEP 6/81 \n\nKnowledge recept of 15 August \nenclosing report of lately appointed \nCommissioner to enquire into and \nstunning Kong \nmatted \nForemmin dations for umenit \nha \nthe practice \nkware ate la caren the tweninsed cost wheel ho been consideredd peaessary slight \namongst other things \nregards to the \npects custo chy and dis beroend \n\nfully consuetered this Report \nbor & the Supreme Court. has'vamous duties with \nComminaonerj", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-186 - Public Offices & Others - 1879.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 350315, "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": "CO129-256 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1892 [8-12]", "page_number": 623, "title": "CO129-256 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1892 [8-12]", "content_text": "# DESPATCH.\n\n**Governor.** No. **Amern 345**\n\n**Date.** **23 Decr 1892**\n\n**Last previous Paper.** `1973/89`\n\nOn dro...\n\n* Probate Registy consão2756\n* Orance Rauctioned 21:13 Ke693?\n\n20691\n\n**Circular No. 154**\n\n**(Subject.)** Ord = 14 of 1892\n\n104\n\n**JON 50 JAN**\n\n**United Kingdom Probate.**\n\n(Jos...\n\n21- Live Bry...\n\n**(Minutes.)**\n\nco aire. 158\n\nM. Ebden noted\n\nGut 307a.\n\nBramsson C.PL. 33\n\nMr Wingfield 283111193\n\n-tier and ask whether Send a copy of the Will and the despatch of the Probate Division of the Supreme Court Justice it complies with the condition proposed the (denial Probates At 1892 by the application f...\n\nthe Sol to the filing...\n\n`427--USA-GO-02`\n\n**Next subsequent Paper.** EW 31 p", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-256 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1892 [8-12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 363127, "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": "CO129-275 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1897 [1-5]", "page_number": 643, "title": "CO129-275 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1897 [1-5]", "content_text": "## PART IV. \n## RULES FOR ADMINISTRATION OF PROPERTY\n\n54. (1) When the Court orders a question of fact to be tried by a jury, the question shall be reduced into writing in such form as the Court may direct, and at the trial the jury shall be empanelled to try the question, and a true verdict to give thereon according to the evidence.\n\n(2) Upon every such trial the Court shall have the same jurisdiction, powers, and authority in all respects as belong to a Judge of the said Supreme Court sitting in its original jurisdiction.\n\n### Calendars of Grants.\n\n55. (1) The Judge shall cause to be made from time to time in the Registry of the Court and to be printed calendars of the grants of probate and administration therein for such periods as the Judge may think fit.\n\n(2) Every such calendar shall contain a note of every probate, or administration with the will annexed, or administration granted within the period therein specified.\n\n(3) Every such note shall set forth the date of the grant, the name of the testator or intestate, the place and time of death, the names and descriptions of the executors or administrators, and the value of the effects as set forth in any commission of appraisement or otherwise.\n\n56. The Registrar shall cause a copy of every such calendar to be transmitted to the Governor, to the Principal Registry of the Probate Division of the High Court of Justice in England, to the Sheriff Court of the County of Edinburgh in Scotland, to the Principal Registry of the Probate Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, and to such other offices, if any, as the Judge may from time to time direct.\n\n### Specialty and simple contract debts to stand in equal degree. \n**(No. 9 of 1870, s. 2.)**\n\n57. In the administration of the estate of every deceased person no debt or liability of such person shall be entitled to any priority or preference by reason merely that the same is secured by or rises under a bond, deed, or other instrument under seal, or is otherwise made or constituted a specialty debt; but all the creditors of such person, as well specialty as simple contract, shall be treated as standing in equal degree, and be paid accordingly out of the assets of such deceased person, whether such assets are legal or equitable: Provided that this Ordinance shall not prejudice or affect any lien, charge, or other security which any creditor may hold or be entitled to for the payment of his debt.\n\n### Power to the Court in administration suits to limit time for creditors to send in their claims. \n**(No. 9 of 1870, s. 2.)**\n\n58. (1) Any executor or administrator may apply by ex parte petition to the Court for an order limiting the time for creditors and others to send in their claims against the estate of the testator or intestate, and specifying what notices are to be given of the making of such order and of the time thereby limited; and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.\n\n(2) Where an executor or administrator has given the notices specified in any such order, he shall, at the expiration of the time limited thereby for sending in such claims, be at liberty to distribute the assets of the testator or intestate, or any part thereof, amongst the parties entitled thereto, having regard to the claims of which he has then notice, and shall not be liable for the assets, or any part thereof, so distributed to any person of whose claim he has not had notice at the time of distribution of the assets or a part thereof, as the case may be.\n\n635 \n## Form of question to be tried, etc. \n**(No. 9 of 1900, s. 19.)**\n## Making and particulars of calendars of grants. \n**(No. 9 of 1880, s. 28.)**\n## Distribution of calendars. \n**(No. 9 of 1880, s. 24)** \n(2) Every such jury shall be struck, summoned, balloted for, and called in like manner as if such jury were a jury for the trial of any cause in the said Supreme Court; and every juryman so summoned shall be entitled to the same rights, and subject to the same duties and liabilities, as if he had been duly summoned for the trial of any such cause in the said Supreme Court; and every party to any such proceeding shall be entitled to the same rights as to challenge and otherwise as if he were a party to any such cause.\n\n(3) Generally for all purposes of or auxiliary to the trial of questions of fact by a jury before the Court, and in respect of new trials thereof, and also for all purposes in relation to or consequential upon the direction of issues, the Court shall have the same jurisdiction, powers, and authority in all respects as belong to the said Supreme Court for the like purposes.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-275 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1897 [1-5].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 363132, "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": "CO129-275 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1897 [1-5]", "page_number": 648, "title": "CO129-275 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1897 [1-5]", "content_text": "(c) For regulating the duties of the various officers of the Court;\n\n(d) For regulating the fees to be taken by the officers of the Court and to be allowed to counsel, proctors, and solicitors practising in the Court, and the fees, charges, and costs to be taken and allowed with respect to all proceedings and all other matters in the Court;\n\n(e) For regulating the filing, custody, and inspection of records; and\n\n(f) Generally for the better carrying out of the provisions of this Ordinance.\n\n(2.) No such rule or order shall be of any force or effect until it has been approved by the Legislative Council and published in The Gazette.\n\n75. Until such rules and orders have been made as aforesaid, the Court may direct, either generally or in any particular case, that the rules and orders now in force or which may hereafter be in force in relation to matters of probate and administration in the Probate Division of the High Court of Justice in England or any part thereof, and the forms of proceedings in use therein, or any of them, subject to their applicability and with such modifications as the circumstances may require, shall be followed and adopted in the Court, and any such direction shall take effect accordingly.\n\n76. An official copy of the whole or any part of a will, or an official certificate of the grant of any administration, may be obtained from the Registry of the Court on the payment of such fees as may be fixed for the same by the rules and orders made under this Ordinance.\n\nTemporary Provisions.\n\n77. All administrations heretofore granted to any Official Administrator shall be deemed to have been made to the Official Administrator for the time being and to his successors in office: Provided that no act heretofore done by any person under any grant of administration made to him as Official Administrator shall be deemed to be affected or rendered invalid on account of the passing of this Ordinance.\n\n78. All non-contentious business pending in the Court at the commencement of this Ordinance shall be deemed to have been commenced under this Ordinance; and all acts executed under the authority of the Court with reference to such business which would have been valid if the enactments hereby repealed were still in operation shall be valid; and all oaths sworn and bonds executed in manner required by the Court in reference to such business prior to the commencement of this Ordinance shall continue to have and be deemed to have had the same force and effect in law as they would have had if sworn and executed in pursuance of the provisions of this Ordinance.\n\n79. All commissions heretofore collected by the Official Administrator on any moneys received or taken possession of, or realized or otherwise dealt with, by the Official Administrator and paid over to the Colonial Treasurer for the public use of the Colony are hereby declared to have been lawfully collected and paid over.\n\n80. The provisions of section 25 shall apply, with such modifications as the Judge may direct, in the case of any sum of money of the kind mentioned in the said section which is, at the commencement of this Ordinance, in the hands of the Official Administrator.\n\n81. The Ordinances mentioned in the Third Schedule to this Ordinance are hereby repealed: Provided that such repeal shall not affect\n\n(1.) Any Order-in-Council or rules or orders made, or any tables of fees, costs, and charges fixed, under any of the said Ordinances, but any such Order-in-Council, rules or orders, and tables shall remain in force until revoked, altered, varied, rescinded, or abrogated under this Ordinance, and any Order-in-Council, rules, orders, or tables referring to or made under any of the said Ordinances shall have effect in the same manner as if it or they referred to the corresponding enactments contained in this Ordinance; or\n\n(2.) Any probate or administration granted, or other act or thing done, under any of the said Ordinances.\n\nPage 1\n\n...\n\nApplication of rules and orders of Probate Division of High Court in England. (No. 9 of 1879, s. 15.)\n\nCopy of will, or certificate of grant of administration. (No. 5 of 1860, s. 23.)\n\nValidation of commissions charged. (No. 13 of 1890, s. 3.)\n\nApplication of provisions of s. 25 to Official Administrator.\n\nRepeal of enactments. Third Schedule.\n\n1\n\n640\n\n13\n\n1", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-275 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1897 [1-5].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 425382, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-366 - Governor Sir Lugard Acting Governor May - 1910 [4-5]", "page_number": 407, "title": "CO129-366 - Governor Sir Lugard Acting Governor May - 1910 [4-5]", "content_text": "# Prince Buildings, \nIce House Street, Hong Kong, 15th December, 1909.\n\n**C O 17521**\n\n## RECO Rege 10 JUN 10, Bill for Amendment of Code of Civil Procedure.\n\nI have the honour to draw your attention to the passage quoted below from the judgment of Mr. Justice Bigham in a case decided on the 28th October last. Mr. Justice Bigham was one of the ablest of the Common Law Judges in England with especially large experience in commercial cases and is now President of the Probate, Admiralty and Divorce Division of the Supreme Court. In the judgment referred to, the learned Judge after deciding that under the circumstances the Court had a discretion to grant or refuse a jury continued as follows according to the report in the Weekly Notes, 1909, page 220:-\n\n\"If the questions to be decided on this petition were simple questions of fact, I should probably accede to the petitioner's application for a jury. But they are by no means simple. Mr. Bankes pointed out, inter alia, that a very large body of evidence has been taken abroad, and that in the course of the reading of that evidence questions of admissibility will have to be discussed. He also said that about 180 photographs of original documents are exhibited to the depositions, and some of these will require minute examination. I do not think all this can conveniently be done by a jury of twelve men. I know the difficulty of keeping the attention of twelve men upon evidence, the reading of which may occupy some days, and I know the inconvenience and the prejudice which may arise in discussing before them questions such as the admissibility of evidence. It is said by the petitioner's Counsel that questions affecting the character of the petitioner have been raised in the course of the case, and that such questions ought to be submitted to a jury,", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-366 - Governor Sir Lugard Acting Governor May - 1910 [4-5].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 431187, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-376 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1911 [3-4]", "page_number": 369, "title": "CO129-376 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1911 [3-4]", "content_text": "112\n\nare not such as can be conveniently performed by the Governor, but where a higher, or a more judicial, authority than the Official Receiver seemed desirable, \"Court\" has been adopted. In one case, which relates to the making of rules, the power has been given to the Legislative Council, and in another, which is only a matter of registration, \"Registrar of Companies\" has been chosen.\n\n## Rules-Fees-Tables-Forms\n\nThe provisions of the Act and of the Bill are compared under the following heads:\n\n(a) Fee for search by non-members of a company's registers of members and mortgages.-In the Act the fee is 1.-, and in the Bill it is 50 cents, which is the present fee for search of the register of members, Act, Sections 30 & 101; Bill, Clauses 31 & 102.\n\n(b) Fee for copies supplied by a company.-In the Act the fee is sixpence per hundred words, and in the Bill it is 25 cents per folio, which is the present fee for copies of the register of members. Act, Sections 30 & 102; Bill, Clauses 31 & 103.\n\n(c) Fee for search in the office of the registrar of companies.-- The Act provides for the payment of such fees as may be appointed by the Board of Trade, not exceeding one shilling for each inspection. The Bill fixes it at $1.00, which is the present fee. Act, Section 243 (c); Bill, Clause 223 (5).\n\n(d) Fees for copies supplied by the registrar of companies.----- The Act provides for fees not exceeding 3- for a certificate of incorporation and not exceeding sixpence per folio for a copy of any other document. The Bill fixes the fees at $5.00 and 40 cents per folio respectively, which are the present fees. Act, Section 243 (6); Bill, Clause 223 (5).\n\n(e) Fees on registration of a company and on registration of an increase of capital. These are set out in Table B in the First Schedule both in the Act and in the Bill. Table B in the Bill simply re-enacts Table B of the present Companies Ordinance, 1865, which contains the fees chargeable here at present. Our scale is a little higher than the scale in the Act, so far as it goes, but it stops at a maximum of $300 while the English scale goes up to £50. To look only at Table B, however, would be to obtain a very misleading comparison between the fees payable on the registration of a company in England and Hongkong respectively, for in England there is payable in addition a Capital Duty of 5- per £100 of capital, and there is no limit upon this duty. It was imposed by the Finance Act, 1899, s. 7, and has no counterpart in Hongkong. The result is that in all but the very smallest companies our registration fees are far lower than the English fees. For instance, in the case of a company with a capital of $500,000 our fee is $224 while in England it would be £127-10-0, or say $1,500. For present purposes have disregarded such fees as do not vary with the amount of the capital.\n\nThe fees in Table B of the Act may be lowered, but may not be increased, by the Board of Trade (Sections 118 & 241). Similarly, those in Table B of the Bill may be lowered, but may not be increased, by the Governor (Clauses 118 & 224).\n\n(f) Fee for registration of documents. This is 5- under the Act, and $3, the present fee, under the Bill. Act, Section 274 and Table B; Bill, Clause 252 and Table B.\n\n(g) Stamps on memorandum and articles.--Both the Act and the Bill require that the memorandum and the articles shall each bear the same stamp as if it were a deed. In England the general deed stamp is 10-, and in Hongkong it is $30. Act, Sections 8 and 12; Bill, Clauses 7 and 13.\n\n113\n\n(h) Stamp on share warrants to bearer.--The present Companies Ordinance, 1865, s. 51, requires share warrants to bearer to be stamped with an ad valorem stamp of 30 cents per $100 of nominal value. In England this duty is provided for in the Stamp Act, 1891, and not in the Companies Act, and it has been decided to deal with it here in an amendment of the Stamp Ordinance. It may be mentioned that the English rate is five times the present Hongkong rate.\n\n(i) Winding up fees.--Under the Act these are fixed by the Lord Chancellor with the sanction of the Treasury, and under the Bill by the Governor-in-Council. Act, Section 237 (3); Bill, Clause 219 (2).\n\n(j) Winding up Rules including winding up forms.-- Under the Act these are made by the Lord Chancellor with the concurrence of the President of the Board of Trade, and under the Bill by the Chief Justice with the sanction of the Colonial Treasurer. Act, Section 237 (1); Bill, Clause 219 (1).\n\n(k) All other rules of procedure, including rules as to costs and fees, are made in England by the authority having power to make rules for Supreme Court, i.e., the Lord Chancellor, Lord Chief Justice, Master of the Rolls, President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, and four other judges. The Bill places this power in the Chief Justice with the approval of the Legislative Council. This is the authority which possesses, under section 32 of Ordinance 3 of 1873, the limited power of making rules for the Supreme Court which is all that the legislature has parted with in this Colony (except for a limited power given to the Chief Justice by Section 709 of the Code of Civil Procedure). Act, Section 238; Bill, Clause 220.\n\n(l) Tables and Forms.--Under the Act, any of the tables and forms in the First Schedule to the Act may be altered by the Board of Trade, except that it may not increase the fees payable to the registrar of companies. Under the Bill these tables and forms may be altered by the Governor, and he also has no power to increase the fees payable to the registrar of companies. Act, Section 118; Bill, Clause 118.\n\n## Banks\n\nThe fact that banking partnerships were excluded from the operation of the Companies Ordinance, 1865, has necessitated the insertion in Clause 227 of a provision that banking companies in existence at the time of the commencement of the Bill may register under it, and of a consequential alteration in Clause 234. Of course existing banks need not register unless they wish. In one other matter relating to banks the Bill differs from the Act, i.e., limited banking companies are not required to publish the statement of assets and liabilities referred to in Clause 108 of the Bill. Act, Sections 108, 249, 256; Bill, Clauses 108, 227, 234.\n\n## Inspection of Register of Members\n\nThe Bill provides that the registrar of companies may inspect the registers of members, mortgages, and debenture holders, of any company without fee. Act, Sections 30 (1), 101, 102; Bill, Clauses 31 (1), 102, 103.\n\n## Holding of lands in Hongkong by Foreign Companies\n\nUnder the Bill, every company incorporated outside the Colony which fulfils the conditions of Clause 252 is empowered to hold lands in the Colony: this follows the present law (see `Ordinance 7 of 1908`). The Act gives the power only to companies incorporated in a British possession. Act, Sections 274, 275; Bill, Clauses 252, 253.\n\nPage 357", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-376 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1911 [3-4].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 433898, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-381 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1911 [11-12]", "page_number": 479, "title": "CO129-381 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1911 [11-12]", "content_text": "## Rules--Fees-Tables-Forms\n\n1. The provisions of the Act and of the Bill are compared under the following heads:\n\n(a) Fee for search by non-members of a company's registers of members and mortgages.—In the Act the fee is 1-, and in the Bill it is 50 cents, which is the present fee for search of the register of members. Act, Sections 30 & 101; Bill, Clauses 31 & 102.\n\n(b) Fee for copies supplied by a company.—In the Act the fee is sixpence per hundred words, and in the Bill it is 25 cents per folio, which is the present fee for copies of the register of members. Act, Sections 30 & 102; Bill, Clauses 31 & 103.\n\n(c) Fee for search in the office of the registrar of companies.—The Act provides for \"the payment of such fees as may be appointed by the Board of Trade, not exceeding one shilling for each inspection\". The Bill fixes it at $1.00, which is the present fee. Act, Section 243(6); Bill, Clause 223(5).\n\n(d) Fees for copies supplied by the registrar of companies.—The Act provides for fees not exceeding 5- for a certificate of incorporation and not exceeding sixpence per folio for a copy of any other document. The Bill fixes the fees at $5.00 and 40 cents per folio respectively, which are the present fees. Act, Section 243(6); Bill, Clause 223(5).\n\n(e) Fees on registration of a company and on registration of an increase of capital.—These are set out in Table B in the First Schedule both in the Act and in the Bill. Table B in the Bill simply re-enacts Table B of the present Companies Ordinance, 1865, which contains the fees chargeable here at present. Our scale is a little higher than the scale in the Act, so far as it goes, but it stops at a maximum of $300 while the English scale goes up to £50. To look only at Table B, however, would be to obtain a very misleading comparison between the fees payable on the registration of a company in England and Hongkong respectively, for in England there is payable in addition a Capital Duty of 5 per £100 of capital, and there is no limit upon this duty. It was imposed by the Finance Act, 1899, s. 7, and has no counterpart in Hongkong. The result is that in all but the very smallest companies our registration fees are far lower than the English fees. For instance, in the case of a company with a capital of $500,000 our fee is $224 while in England it would be £127-10-0, or say $1,500. For present purposes, I have disregarded such fees as do not vary with the amount of the capital.\n\nThe fees in Table B of the Act may be lowered, but may not be increased, by the Board of Trade (Sections 118 & 244). Similarly, those in Table B of the Bill may be lowered, but may not be increased, by the Governor (Clauses 118 & 224).\n\n(f) Fee for registration of documents.—This is 5'- under the Act, and $3, the present fee, under the Bill. Act, Section 274 and Table B; Bill, Clause 252 and Table B.\n\n(g) Stamps on memorandum and articles.—Both the Act and the Bill require that the memorandum and the articles shall each bear the same stamp as if it were a deed. In England the general deed stamp is 10-, and in Hongkong it is $30. Act, Sections 6 and 12; Bill, Clauses 7 and 13.\n\n(h) Stamp on share warrants to bearer.—The present Companies Ordinance, 1865, s. 51, requires share warrants to bearer to be stamped with an ad valorem stamp of 30 cents per $100 of nominal value. In England, this duty is provided for in the Stamp Act, 1891, and not in the Companies Act, and it has been decided to deal with it here in an amendment of the Stamp Ordinance. It may be mentioned that the English rate is five times the present Hongkong rate.\n\n(i) Winding up fees.—Under the Act, those are fixed by the Lord Chancellor with the sanction of the Treasury, and under the Bill by the Governor-in-Council. Act, Section 237(3); Bill, Clause 219(2).\n\n(j) Winding up Rules \"including winding up forms\".—Under the Act, these are made by the Lord Chancellor with the concurrence of the President of the Board of Trade, and under the Bill by the Chief Justice with the sanction of the Colonial Treasurer. Act, Section 237(1); Bill, Clause 219(1).\n\n(k) All other rules of procedure, including rules as to costs and fees, are made in England by the authority having power to make rules for Supreme Court, i.e., the Lord Chancellor, Lord Chief Justice, Master of the Rolls, President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, and four other judges. The Bill places this power in the Chief Justice with the approval of the Legislative Council. This is the authority which possesses, under section 32 of Ordinance 3 of 1873, the limited power of making rules for the Supreme Court which is all that the legislature has parted with in this Colony (except for a limited power given to the Chief Justice by Section 709 of the Code of Civil Procedure). Act, Section 238; Bill, Clause 220.\n\n(l) Tables and Forms.—Under the Act, any of the tables and forms in the First Schedule to the Act may be altered by the Board of Trade, except that it may not increase the fees payable to the registrar of companies. Under the Bill, those tables and forms may be altered by the Governor, and he also has no power to increase the fees payable to the registrar of companies. Act, Section 118; Bill, Clause 118.\n\n## Banks\n\nThe fact that banking partnerships were excluded from the operation of the Companies Ordinance, 1865, has necessitated the insertion in Clause 227 of a provision that banking companies in existence at the time of the commencement of the Bill may register under it, and of a consequential alteration in Clause 234. Of course, existing banks need not register unless they wish. In one other matter relating to banks, the Bill differs from the Act, i.e., limited banking companies are not required to publish the statement of assets and liabilities referred to in Clause 108 of the Bill. Act, Sections 108, 249, 256; Bill, Clauses 108, 227, 234.\n\n## Inspection of Register of Members\n\nThe Bill provides that the registrar of companies may inspect the registers of members, mortgages, and debenture holders, of any company without fee. Act, Sections 30(1), 101, 102; Bill, Clauses 31(1), 102, 103.\n\n## Holding of lands in Hongkong by Foreign Companies\n\nUnder the Bill, every company incorporated outside the Colony which fulfils the conditions of Clause 252 is empowered to hold lands in the Colony: this follows the present law (see Ordinance 7 of 1908). The Act gives the power only to companies incorporated in a British possession. Act, Sections 274, 275; Bill, Clauses 252, 253.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-381 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1911 [11-12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 449771, "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": "CO129-414 - Governor Sir May - 1914 [10-11]", "page_number": 453, "title": "CO129-414 - Governor Sir May - 1914 [10-11]", "content_text": "Translation of CODE Telegram\n\nFrom GOVERNOR, SINGAPORE (For SECRETARY OF STATE)\n\nTo GOVERNOR, HONGKONG.\n\nDate 13th November, 1914.\n\n--------------\n\n126450\n\nFollowing telegram received from Secretary of State repeated for your information and guidance;\n\nNovember 12th. In case of \"Howe\" President Probate Divorce Admiralty Division High Court directed in pursuance of order form 5 Prize Courts Rules 1914 (Begins)\n\nThat whenever an alien enemy conceives that he is entitled to any protection privilege or relief under any of the Hague Conventions of 1907 he shall be\n\nentitled to appear as a claimant and to argue his claim before that court; the grounds of his claim will be stated in the affidavit to lead to appearance which is required to be filed by order 3 rule 5 of the Prize\n\nCourt Rules 1915 (Ends)\n\nPrincipal Judge of Prize Court should be asked to give\n\nsimilar direction. In this connection definition of\n\nPresident in order 1 rule 1 case also decided that the word\n\n\"port\" in Hague Convention 6 of 1907 must be construed in\n\nits usual and limited popular or commercial sense as a\n\nplace where ships are in the habit of coming to load or\n\nunload embark or disembark. Harcourt.\n\nYOUNG", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-414 - Governor Sir May - 1914 [10-11].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 450785, "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": "CO129-416 - Public Offices - 1914", "page_number": 367, "title": "CO129-416 - Public Offices - 1914", "content_text": "# \nConcerning its situation. \nThis property therefore with you under the box. Government surrender it, form parking property consisting matters very much as far as they advance a one com suspect that this form of this letter is not uny Jue the Revenue 4.2.\n\nThe property 2 66 shares 10 actual value 1 Etavidson's mainti imagine as often each as vottu low practise of on this subject. I cant B.K. find anything a he Jonot Specipe. seem to look im rules a complete copy Tours. But if the Supreme section 75 of broke 20 1097 the rules of the English Probate Division are directed to apply no special Portal this English in so far as anles aal made so Ze Praction would probably be adapted.\n\nAs however we have no definite information with regard to the practice the пробони Cannot give 7.0 any information on the subject without referring But I am all clear what it 7o really want I dont th \"Maar. Kat forsation any vations with regard to this laws praction of k' will tok that what thing really want is ask HK. To get us 10 to waive 10 bona Vacantia their dein not to \n\nI should prefer experts ack tus unten in londo fo the best thing To send 7.0 a on the whole Keens 1o-dr tentative reps the to draw them little further ? eply ins are that there for aware any Lav dealing expany wie bona Vacantia, bona va Calling attention to ander 2/10 be stating that kohaware of any ules heade are under \n\nPage 363", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-416 - Public Offices - 1914.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 483775, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-461 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1920 [5-7]", "page_number": 128, "title": "CO129-461 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1920 [5-7]", "content_text": "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONGKONG\n\nORIGINAL JURISDICTION\n\nSuit No. 46 of 1901.\n\nThe Attorney General v. Sarah Jaques, Executrix of Joseph Jacques, deceased.\n\nTuesday 25th June 1901.\n\nX.C.M.G.\n\nJudgment of His Hon. Sir John W. Carrington, Chief Justice.\n\nPlaintiff. Defendant.\n\n126\n\nIn this case the parties filed a memorandum of agreement under Section 88 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the purpose of obtaining the finding of the Court upon a question of law which is stated in a special case annexed to the memorandum. By the memorandum it is agreed that if the finding of the Court is in the affirmative of the question submitted to it, the defendant is to pay to the Colonial Treasurer certain probate duty in respect of the estate of her testator, while if the finding is in the negative the plaintiff is to withdraw his claim for payment of that probate duty.\n\nThe facts upon which the question arises are set forth in the special case, and may be shortly stated as follows:\n\nThe testator died in England on the 23rd January, 1900, and probate of his will was granted by the High Court of Justice Probate Division to the defendant on the 2nd May, 1900.\n\nAn exemplification of the probate was sealed with the seal of this Court in its Probate Jurisdiction on the 7th August, 1900, and probate duty was paid on property of the estate in this Colony, consisting of shares in various companies of the total value of $629,367.70.\n\nSince this payment was made it has been ascertained that, in addition to these shares, the testator was entitled to the undermentioned parcels of shares namely:\n\n(1) A parcel of 767 shares in the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, which were on the London Register of the Corporation and the Scrip or Share certificates which were at the date of his death, in the possession and under the control of the corporation in London, subject to a lien or charge in favour of the Corporation amounting to £975.5.6d;\n\n(2) A parcel of 705 shares in the same Corporation which were on the Shanghai Register of the Corporation and were at the date of his death, in the possession and under the control of the Corporation at Shanghai, subject to a lien or charge in favour of the Corporation amounting to Taels 252,412.72 (Shanghai Sycee).\n\nThe Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation was incorporated in Hongkong by Ordinance No. 5 of 1866 and exists and is governed by the provisions of that Ordinance and of the Deed of Settlement mentioned therein and of certain later Ordinances extending and amending the Original Ordinance of Incorporation.\n\nThe Head Office of the Corporation is in Hongkong, and the business of the Corporation is managed and controlled by a Court of Directors in Hongkong. A Register of Shareholders is kept in Hongkong, a separate volume being opened and kept for Hongkong Shareholders, for English Shareholders, for Shanghai Shareholders and for Calcutta Shareholders respectively.\n\n-1-", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-461 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1920 [5-7].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 483780, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-461 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1920 [5-7]", "page_number": 133, "title": "CO129-461 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1920 [5-7]", "content_text": "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONGKONG\n\nORIGINAL JURISDICTION\n\nSuit No. 46 of 1901.\n\nThe Attorney General v. Sarah Jaques, Executrix of Joseph Jacques, deceased.\n\n1\n\nTuesday 25th June 1901\n\nJudgment of His Hon. Sir John W. Carrington, K.C.M.G. Chief Justice.\n\nPlaintiff. Defendant.\n\n130\n\nIn this case the parties filed a memorandum of agreement under Section 88 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the purpose of obtaining the finding of the Court upon a question of law which is stated in a special case annexed to the memorandum.\n\nBy the memorandum it is agreed that if the finding of the Court is in the affirmative of the question submitted to it, the defendant is to pay to the Colonial Treasurer certain probate duty in respect of the estate of her testator, while if the finding is in the negative the plaintiff is to withdraw his claim for payment of that probate duty.\n\nThe facts upon which the question arises are set forth in the special case, and may be shortly stated as follows: -\n\nThe testator died in England on the 23rd January, 1900, and probate of his will was granted by the High Court of Justice Probate Division to the defendant on the 2nd May, 1900.\n\nAn exemplification of the probate was sealed with the seal of this Court in its Probate Jurisdiction on the 7th August, 1900, and probate duty was paid on property of the estate in this Colony, consisting of shares in various companies of the total value of $629,367.70.\n\nSince this payment was made it has been ascertained that, in addition to these shares, the testator was entitled to the undermentioned parcels of shares namely: -\n\n(1) A parcel of 767 shares in the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, which were on the London Register of the Corporation and the Scrip or Share certificates which were at the date of his death, in the possession and under the control of the corporation in London, subject to a lien or charge in favour of the Corporation amounting to £975.5.6d;\n\n(2) A parcel of 705 shares in the same Corporation which were on the Shanghai Register of the Corporation and were at the date of his death, in the possession and under the control of the Corporation at Shanghai, subject to a lien or charge in favour of the Corporation amounting to Taels 252,412.72 (Shanghai Sycee).\n\nThe Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation was incorporated in Hongkong by Ordinance No. E of 1866 and exists and is governed by the provisions of that Ordinance and of the Deed of Settlement mentioned therein and of certain later Ordinances extending and amending the Original Ordinance of incorporation.\n\nThe Head office of the Corporation is in Hongkong, and the business of the Corporation is managed and controlled by a Court of Directors in Hongkong. A Register of Shareholders is kept in Hongkong, a separate volume being opened and kept for Hongkong Shareholders, for English Shareholders, for Shanghai Shareholders and for Calcutta Shareholders respectively.\n\n-1-", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-461 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1920 [5-7].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 491516, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-474 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1922 [1-4]", "page_number": 57, "title": "CO129-474 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1922 [1-4]", "content_text": "COPY.\n\nIN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONGKONG\n\nORIGINAL JURISDICTION\n\n55\n\nSUIT NO. 46 of 1901.\n\nThe Attorney General\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nVs.\n\nSarah Jaques, Executrix of\n\nJoseph Jaques, deceased.\n\nDefendant.\n\nTuesday 25th June. 1901.\n\nJUDGMENT OF HIS HON. SIR JOHN W. CARRINGTON, Kt. C.M.G.\n\nCHIEF JUSTICE.\n\nIn this case the parties filed a memorandum of agreement\n\nunder Section 88 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the purpose\n\nof obtaining the finding of the Court upon a question of law, which is stated in a special case annexed to the memorandum. By the memorandum it is agreed that if the finding of the Court is in the affirmative of the question submitted to it, the defendant is to pay to the Colonial Treasurer certain probate duty in respect of the estate of her testator, while if the finding is in the negative the Plaintiff is to withdraw his claim for payment of that probate duty.\n\nThe facts upon which the question arises are set forth\n\nin the special case, and may be shortly stated as follows:-\n\nThe testator died in England on the 23rd January, 1900, and probate of his will was granted by the High Court of Justice Probate Division to the defendant on the 2nd May, 1900.\n\nAn exemplification of the probate was sealed with the seal of this Court in its Probate Jurisdiction on the 7th August 1900, and probate duty was paid on property of the estate in this Colony consisting of shares in various companies of the total value of $529,367.70.\n\nSince", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-474 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1922 [1-4].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 491525, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-474 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1922 [1-4]", "page_number": 66, "title": "CO129-474 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1922 [1-4]", "content_text": "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONGKONG\n\nIN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONGKONG\n\nORIGINAL JURISDICTION\n\nSUIT NO. 46 of 1901.\n\nThe Attorney General\n\nORIGINAL JURISDICTION\n\nSUIT NO. 46 of 1901.\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nV.\n\nThe Attorney General\n\nSarah Jaques, Executrix of Joseph Jaques, deceased.\n\nDefendant.\n\n64\n\nV.\n\nSarah Jaques, Executrix\n\nof Joseph Jaques, deceased.\n\nJUDGMENT.\n\nSOLICITORS,\n\nJOHNSON, STOKES & MASTER,\n\n&c.,\n\nHongkong.\n\nFol.37 E\n\nTuesday 25th June, 1901,\n\nJUDGMENT OF HIS HON. SIR JOHN J. CARINGTON, Kt.\n\nCHIEF JUSTICE.\n\nIn this case the parties filed a memorandum of agreement under Section 68 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the purpose of obtaining the finding of the Court upon a question of law, which is stated in the special case annexed to the memorandum. By the memorandum it is agreed that if the finding of the Court is in the affirmative of the question submitted to it, the defendant is to pay to the Colonial Treasurer certain probate duty in respect of the estate of her testator, while if the finding is in the negative the Plaintiff is to withdraw his claim for payment of that probate duty.\n\nThe facts upon which the question arises are set forth in the special case, and may be shortly stated as follows:-\n\nThe testator died in England on the 23rd January, 1900,\n\nand probate of his will was granted by the High Court of Justice Probate Division to the defendant on the 2nd May, 1900.\n\nAn exemplification of the probate was sealed with the seal of this Court in its Probate Jurisdiction on the 7th August 1900, and probate duty was paid on property of the estate in this Colony consisting of shares in various companies of the total value of £29,367.70.\n\nSince...", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-474 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1922 [1-4].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 495636, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-481 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1923 [8-12]", "page_number": 304, "title": "CO129-481 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1923 [8-12]", "content_text": "70\n\nHarbour Master, who, as Government Coaling Officer, was responsible for the very satisfactory arrangements in connection with the large quantity of coal handled.\n\n26. Under date the 28th December, 1920, a circular despatch was issued from the Colonial Office to the Colonies regarding the recently passed Imperial Indemnity Act. It was provided in the Act that His Majesty in Council might apply its provisions to any of the Crown Colonies, but the Secretary of State pointed out that in the course of its passage through the House of Commons the Bill was so developed that in its final form it was closely bound up with conditions and transactions in the United Kingdom. It appeared to him that it was inexpedient to issue any Orders in Council under the Act, and the Colonies were invited to consider the alternative of local legislation. An Indemnity Bill was accordingly introduced in the Council on the 1st September, 1921. It was opposed by the owners, who were represented by counsel, and it was then decided not to proceed further with the matter until the return from leave of Mr. Fletcher who had conducted all negotiations with the owners on behalf of the Government.\n\n27. Mr. Fletcher came back to the Colony at the end of the year 1921, and, after further conversations with the owners, a proposal that half the money held by the Hongkong Government should be returned to them was put before the Unofficial Members of the Legislative Council. The owners were warned that in any event it was improbable that the Imperial Government would be able to accept the proposal; but the Unofficial Members rejected it, on the ground that, all British ships having been treated alike, it would be unfair to discriminate in favour of the ships which had been controlled in Hongkong. This matter was referred to at a discussion at the Colonial Office on the 9th November, 1922, at which Mr. Burrows, a solicitor representing the owners, and Mr. C. R. Burkill, representing the S.S. Patriot and having an interest in the S.S. Wollowra, were present. The following note was taken:\n\nReference was made to negotiations with Mr. Fletcher and to an offer of division of profits on a 50/50 basis said to have been made by the Government of Hongkong but turned down by the Unofficials. Sir G. Grindle said that any offer on the lines referred to above, even if it had been decided upon by the Colonial Government, would undoubtedly have failed to secure the Secretary of State's sanction.\n\n28. The Hongkong Government had now no alternative but to pass the Indemnity Bill, which accordingly became law by a unanimous vote of the Legislative Council on the 18th August, 1922. The Hongkong Government's responsibility in the matter was clearly defined at the interview at the Colonial Office referred to in the last paragraph, the note of which reads as follows:\n\n\"Sir G. Grindle said that before the discussion went further it would in his opinion be useful if he were to state the general position of the Imperial Government in the matter. He stated that it had been necessary for war reasons for the Government of Hongkong to take the action which was taken as to requisitioning of ships. The Secretary of State's attitude as to this action was that either it was legal or if it were not—and for the sake of argument he was prepared to admit that it was hopelessly illegal—it must be made legal. The Indemnity Ordinance was not a device of the Hongkong Government to meet their own special difficulties, but was passed on the instructions of His Majesty's Government, as similar Ordinances were passed in Colonies similarly situated, and was intended to carry out the deliberate intention and decision of His Majesty's Government that shipowners in Hongkong and elsewhere in the Colonies must not be placed in any way in a more favourable position than shipowners in this country. It had been suggested that the action of the Hongkong Government imposed a special tax on shipowners. Sir G. Grindle was prepared to admit this, but he pointed out that this was a disability shared in war-time by Hongkong with home shipowners, and that it could not be avoided. He observed that it was only for technical reasons, not specially affecting Hongkong, that it had been decided not to apply the Imperial Indemnity Act to the Colonies, and that as a matter of fact such a course had been very seriously considered. The Hongkong Ordinance was a piece of Imperial policy which no Secretary of State was likely to reverse, and it was inconceivable that it should be disallowed\".\n\n71\n\n29. On the 28th March, 1923, the following letter was addressed to the owners' solicitors:\n\n\"With reference to my letter of the 19th of September, 1922, I am directed to state that a reply has now been received from the Secretary of State for the Colonies who requests that you should be informed that he regrets that he has not seen his way to recommend to His Majesty the King that the Indemnity Ordinance (No. 18 of 1922), in so far as it concerns the shipping control of Hongkong, should not receive the Royal Assent.\n\nI am also to state that His Grace the Duke of Devonshire has requested His Excellency the Governor to consider and report on any representations which you may wish to make with a view to showing that local shipowners have received less favourable treatment than under the Imperial Scheme. His Grace further desires that you should be warned that any concession which the Hongkong Government might wish to suggest would require his sanction after consultation with other departments of His Majesty's Government interested in the matter.\"\n\nNo reply has been received to that letter, and there the matter now stands.\n\n30. Various statements have been made, in petitions presented to the Legislative Council and elsewhere, regarding alleged losses sustained by owners owing to the Hongkong Government's Control. The following correspondence bears upon the point:\n\nMessrs. Deacon, Looker, Deacon, & Harston to Colonial Secretary, 11th April, 1918.\n\n\"We enclose herewith working accounts of the steamships Telemachus, Phoumpenk, Haimun, Brisbane, Wollowra, Castlefield, and Patriot. From a perusal of such working accounts it will be seen that, when the remuneration proposed to be paid by the Government is placed against the working expenses, the result is a very substantial loss in each case.\"\n\nColonial Secretary to Messrs. Deacon, Looker, Deacon, & Harston, 15th April, 1918.\n\n\"I may state, however, that this Government is unable to accept the figures which you have put before it. In the case of the S.S. Telemachus for instance the owner's commission is reckoned upon the sum of $45,907; whereas it would in fact, under the calculation given, be payable on a sum of $58,800. Depreciation is allowed for upon a value of $600,000, or roughly £90,000; whereas, apart altogether from the question whether or no depreciation is a proper charge, it is customary to take the value, for purposes of depreciation, as the purchase price plus renewals less the amount already written off. Without going further into detail, it may be stated generally that the accounts, as presented by you, are not drawn up in accordance with the customary practice of shipping companies.\n\nThis Government will, however, closely watch the working of the requisition scheme, and I am to assure you that the interests of the owners will receive its sympathetic consideration.\"\n\nWith regard to the value of $600,000 placed upon the S.S. Telemachus, at the time when she was about to come under control, it may be mentioned that in 1916, when large profits were being made and there was no control, the value of the ship was given for probate purposes in the sum of $185,000. The sterling equivalents on the pertinent dates were approximately £92,500 and £19,000.\n\n31. On the 7th June, 1923, at a meeting of the shareholders of Messrs. Moller & Co. (Shanghai), Ltd., held at Shanghai, Mr. E. Moller referred to the Hongkong Government's \"unjustifiable scheme, which in its pitilessness and relentlessness is quite unparalleled—a scheme which has had the effect of driving into liquidation a modest Shanghai Shipping Company which has had its Red Anchor flag flying over these Chinese waters for over half a century.\" Mr. Moller did not make it clear to what company he referred; it was not Messrs. Moller & Co. (Shanghai), Ltd., as that company was incorporated in 1918. Lloyd's Register of Shipping for the year immediately before the outbreak of war does not include Messrs. Moller in the list of shipowners, and it appears from subsequent editions of the Register that the ships which were named by Mr. Moller to his shareholders were acquired at various dates after war began.\n\n298", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-481 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1923 [8-12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 495826, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-481 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1923 [8-12]", "page_number": 492, "title": "CO129-481 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1923 [8-12]", "content_text": "484\n\n-\n\nlaw of his domicile (i.e. Mohammedan law) he was capable of marrying more than one wife. For some fifteen or more years before his death he had been resident in England and engaged as a teacher of Eastern languages. In 1905 in England he went through a ceremony of marriage according to Mohammedan law with an English woman, described in the proceedings as Later, Violet Annie Majid, and by her he had two children.\n\nIn 1920 (or alternatively in 1922) he went through a ceremony of marriage in England according to Mohammedan law with another English woman, described in the action as Kate Elizabeth Belshah, by whom he had also two children. In 1923 he died intestate. Claims to his estate were made in the Probate Division of the High Court by these two women and their respective children, in which each of them denied the right of the other to succeed to any of the estate. However, during the hearing the two parties came to an agreement, and the proceedings were terminated on the terms of an agreed settlement, which was made an Order of the Court.\n\nUnder this settlement both parties recognise the validity of both the marriages according to Mohammedan law and the legitimacy of the four children, and the solicitors to the two parties were appointed administrators for the purpose of collecting the estate and distributing it to these two women and their respective children under the terms of the settlement.\n\nThis case is of great interest, because it appears to show that an English Court recognises the polygamous unions of a person, by the law of whose domicile such unions are recognised as marriages, as being capable of supporting rights of succession to property and of producing legitimate children. The President, while apparently granting this amount of recognition to these unions, was careful to make it clear that neither of these women could claim grants of administration of the estate as a wife, on the ground that this would be contrary to English law, since the right to claim administration as a wife could only be claimed by a party to a union which was recognised as a marriage for all purposes in English law.\n\nIn other words, while recognising these women's and their children's rights of succession to the property under the law of the domicile, he did not recognise", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-481 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1923 [8-12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 529232, "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": "CO129-532-7 Anti-piracy guards- China Navigation Company v. H.M. Attorney General 19-1-1931 - 20-4-1932", "page_number": 16, "title": "CO129-532-7 Anti-piracy guards- China Navigation Company v. H.M. Attorney General 19-1-1931 - 20-4-1932", "content_text": "## \nIn consequence, the hearing was adjourned, and the Attorney-General supplied us with two detailed memoranda as to the Navy and Army respectively. Counsel for the Appellants did not discuss in detail the Navy papers, as he appeared to take the view that the prerogative of the Crown in respect of the Navy was much wider than that, if any, in regard to the Army, owing to the historical circumstances connected with the Revolution of 1689 and the Bill of Rights in connection with a \"standing Army\".\n\nIn the case of the Navy, it was obvious that the Admiralty constantly received payments from outsiders, foreign Governments, or British and foreign subjects, for work done or services or materials supplied to those outsiders; and that the Admiralty so acted without any express authority from Statutes, though the sums they received were dealt with in the Appropriation Act as stated hereafter. For instance, the Admiralty charter the Navy oil tankers to private individuals for reward when they are not required for Navy services, and there is no Statute authorising such action. The most interesting question is that of salvage. In the \"Mary Anne\" (1 Haggard, page 158), Lord Stowell had said \"though there is an obligation on King's ships to assist the merchant vessels of this country, yet when services have been rendered, those who confer them are entitled to an adequate reward.\" That statement was limited in later years by the Statutes requiring that no salvage reward should be claimed without permission of the Admiralty. It was also made more precise by the decision in \"The Ulysses\" (13 Probate Division, page 205), where the Court said that it would not treat the presence of a King's ship protecting against actual pirates or robbers as salvage service, but did treat the presence of guards and sentinels not on the King's ship but on a wrecked ship to guard against pirates or robbers who might attack, and of members of the Navy salving cargo from maritime perils, as entitling them to salvage reward. This was not the case of a claim for salvage service and remuneration under an agreement made, not when perils were actually endangering the ship, but in anticipation that such perils might arise. The question of King's Ship Salvage was not exhaustively discussed before us, but will be found so discussed in Kennedy on Civil Salvage, pages 112 to 118. The Admiralty render services to private persons and Companies in time of civil commotion for payment. A similar series of payments to the War Office for the supply of materials and men is set out in the Army Memorandum. None of these payments are all required or protected by express statutory authority; are said to be justified by the uncontrolled discretion of the King as head of the Army, in matters under which he is under no express statutory restriction, such as the requirement that he shall not employ more men or spend more money than Parliament authorises. He need not employ all these men or spend all the money that Parliament authorises. The matter is left to the uncontrolled discretion which he exercises by his Ministers. The Courts cannot question it, though Parliament by Vote of no confidence, or pressure in Parliament may influence it.\n\nThe financial side of the matter, the question of imposing a charge on subjects without the consent of Parliament, is illuminated by two memoranda from the Treasury set out to us during the second hearing. The first sets out the way in which receipts for services rendered by the Army and Navy have been dealt with during the last 120 years.\n\n## 5. \n16", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-532-7 Anti-piracy guards- China Navigation Company v. H.M. Attorney General 19-1-1931 - 20-4-1932.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 529250, "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": "CO129-532-7 Anti-piracy guards- China Navigation Company v. H.M. Attorney General 19-1-1931 - 20-4-1932", "page_number": 34, "title": "CO129-532-7 Anti-piracy guards- China Navigation Company v. H.M. Attorney General 19-1-1931 - 20-4-1932", "content_text": "# 34\n\nwhere there is no absolute duty a demand for payment is not necessarily contrary to public policy. The duty here being of imperfect obligation, is not so absolute as to preclude a charge. I would add that, in any event, I have grave doubts whether the duty of imperfect obligation to defend the subject from enemies by the use of troops extends to the suppression of piracy on the seas. By 11 & 12 William III., chapter 7, section 11, an Act for the more effectual suppression of piracy, specific power is given to the Judge of the High Court of Admiralty and other persons to raise and levy upon the owners of a ship and goods defended by officers, seamen, and mariners, against pirates, enemies, or sea rovers, money to be distributed among the defenders, their widows, and children. And, although for certain statutory purposes a pirate is to be deemed to be an enemy, (`Naval Discipline Act, 29 & 30 Victoria, chapter 109, section 49`) yet the definition of a pirate stated in Hawkins Pleas of the Crown, chapter 20, at page 251, still stands, \"that a pirate is one who to enrich himself either by surprise or open force sets upon merchants or others trading by sea, to spoil them of their goods or treasure.\"\n\nA pirate at the common law is a person who commits any of those acts of robbery and depredation upon the High Seas, which, if committed on land, would have amounted to a felony there.\n\nWere there no other obstacle in the way in the argument of the Appellants in contending for the duty of the Crown, this consideration would have to be considered: whether the obligation of the Crown, such as it is, to protect the subject extends to a protection against pirates upon the High Seas, and if so, whether it is not a duty cast upon the Navy and not the Army.\n\nThe duty of the King to protect his subjects is stated in Chitty on Prerogative, thus: \"Protection, that is the security and governance of his Dominions according to law, is the duty of the Sovereign\". Blackstone, page 262, indicates that monarchial government has for one of its purposes the protection of weakness of individuals by the united strength of the community. But as regards the duty of protection by sea, I do not know that such a duty can be put higher than is stated by Lord Stowell in the \"Mary Anne\", that there is an obligation upon King's ships to assist the merchant vessels of this country; see also the observations of Sir J. Hannen in the \"Ulysses\", 13 Probate Division, page 205, at page 208, which indicate that the Admiralty is the normal protector of the subject against pirates. Piracy is robbery within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty, (`Attorney-General for Hong-Kong v. Kwok-a-Sing`, (Law Reports, 5 Privy Council, page 180, at page 200); `R v. Dawson` (13 State Trials, page 454).\n\nI can find no obligation upon the Army to protect merchant ships. If there be any such duty in the Crown, it would appear to be imposed not upon the Army but upon the Sea Forces of the Crown, for the use of which there is no complaint as to charge in the present case. In any event, in such a case it is for the Crown to decide what resources in its armoury, Naval or Military, it will employ.\n\nFor all these reasons I am of opinion that this appeal must be dismissed.\n\n23.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-532-7 Anti-piracy guards- China Navigation Company v. H.M. Attorney General 19-1-1931 - 20-4-1932.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 557356, "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": "CO129-567-10 Companies Amendment Ordinance- draft bill 15-9-1938 - 28-9-1938", "page_number": 103, "title": "CO129-567-10 Companies Amendment Ordinance- draft bill 15-9-1938 - 28-9-1938", "content_text": "Scope of Nomination.\n\n69. Except where otherwise stated, any such nomination shall (subject to the provisions of these Regulations) be deemed to extend to all sums to which a nominator is entitled at the time of his decease in respect of Government Stock standing at the date of his decease to his credit in the Government Stock Register of the Post Office Savings Bank or in respect of a Savings Bank Annuity or Insurance, but a nominator may in a nomination expressly exclude any of such sums from the operation of such nomination. These Regulations as to such nominations shall not apply to any sum standing to the credit of an account in a Coupon Deposit Book.\n\nDivision of sums nominated.\n\nWitness to Nomination disqualified from taking under it.\n\n70. A nomination may be in favour of one person or of several persons (who shall be clearly designated in the nomination), and in the latter case may direct that specific sums shall be paid to one or more of the persons named in the nomination, or that the persons named in such nomination may take the property nominated in specified shares, or may give directions to both effects.\n\n71. No person who witnesses the signature of a nominator to a nomination shall take any benefit under such nomination.\n\nOperation of Nomination.\n\nPayment of debts out of nominated deposits.\n\nPayment for a nominee under 16.\n\n72. Subject to the provisions of these Regulations where the Postmaster-General has no notice of the claim of any creditor of the nominator, the Postmaster-General shall pay the persons named in any such nomination made by such nominator, and in force at the time of his death, according to the directions of such nomination, notwithstanding the production of Probate of the Will of the deceased nominator or Letters of Administration to his estate, and the receipt of any person so named shall be a good discharge to the Postmaster-General for the sum so paid, notwithstanding such person has not attained the age of 21 years if such person has attained the age of 16 years.\n\n73. Where, on the death of a nominator who has made a nomination, the Postmaster-General has notice of a claim of any creditor against the estate of such nominator, and such estate, apart from the amount nominated, appears to be insufficient to satisfy such claim, the Postmaster-General may, in his discretion, apply the amount nominated in or towards the satisfaction of such claim, but subject as aforesaid any payment made by the Postmaster-General to the nominee, shall be a valid payment, and the receipt of the nominee shall be a good discharge to the Postmaster-General for the sum so paid.\n\n74. Where any person nominated to receive any sum on the death of a depositor is an infant under the age of 16 years, and it is proved to the satisfaction of the Postmaster-General that funds are urgently needed for the maintenance, education, or benefit of such infant, the Postmaster-General in his absolute discretion may pay the sum mentioned in the nomination, or any part thereof, to any person who may satisfy the Postmaster-General that he will apply such money for the benefit of such infant, and the receipt of such person shall be a good discharge to the Postmaster-General for the amount so paid.\n\n75. Where any person named in any nomination made before or after the date upon which these Regulations come into operation and in force at the time of the death of the nominator by whom it was made dies after the death of such nominator but before the Postmaster-General has paid such nominee, the provisions of these Regulations shall, subject to the provisions of Regulation 73 hereof, apply to such nominee and to the sum payable to him as nominee as if at the date of his death such deceased nominee were a depositor in the Post Office Savings Bank and the said sum were deposited in his name in a Post Office Savings Bank account.\n\n76.—(1) Nothing in these Regulations contained shall invalidate or prejudice in any way any nomination made prior to the date upon which these Regulations come into operation.\n\n(2) Any nomination made prior to the date upon which these Regulations come into operation shall be governed (subject nevertheless to the provisions of Regulation 75 hereof) in all respects by the Post Office Savings Bank Regulations, 1910, and the Post Office Savings Bank Amendment (No. 1) Regulations, 1911, and such Regulations shall remain in force in all respects in relation to any such nomination accordingly.\n\n77. On any certificate granted to a depositor by the Postmaster-General for the purpose of transferring deposits from the Post Office Savings Bank to a Trustee Savings Bank, a memorandum shall be made specifying the date and other particulars of any nomination made in respect of such deposits.\n\n78.—(1) When deposits are transferred from a Trustee Savings Bank to the Post Office Savings Bank any nomination made with respect to such deposits while in the Trustee Savings Bank shall (if such nomination is brought to the notice of the Postmaster-General) be deemed to hold good with respect to deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank.\n\n(2) The Postmaster-General may require proof to his satisfaction of the making of any such nomination, and that the same is at the date of the transfer of full force and effect.\n\nPayment of Deposits of Deceased Depositors.\n\n79. (1) The Postmaster-General may require proof to his satisfaction of the decease of a depositor.\n\n(2) The Postmaster-General may accept as conclusive proof of the death of a depositor and of the date of the death of a depositor such statement or information as the Postmaster-General may in his absolute discretion think fit and a statement or information to his satisfaction that a depositor has not been heard of for a certain period may be accepted as proof of death.\n\nPage 23\n\nPage 22\n\n120\n\n121", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-567-10 Companies Amendment Ordinance- draft bill 15-9-1938 - 28-9-1938.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 } ]