539886-1905-Order-by-His-Majesty-in-Council-amending-the-procedure-to-be-followed-in-England-in-Appeals-to-His-Majesty-in-Council — Page 1

654

THE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 12TH MAY, 1905.

GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION.--No. 285.

The following Order by His Majesty the King in Council, with the covering letter from the Registrar of the Privy Council, is published.

By Command,

Colonial Secretary's Office, Hongkong, 9th May, 1905.

F. H. May, Colonial Secretary.

PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE,

DOWNING STREET,

SIR,

LONDON, SW,

31st March, 1905.

1. I am instructed by the Lord President of the Council to send you two copies of an Order in Council dated the 20th March, 1905, amending the procedure to be followed in England in Appeals to His Majesty in Council where a Respondent fails to enter an Appearance, and to ask you to be good enough to bring the contents of the Order under the notice of the learned Judges of the Supreme

Court.

2. I am, at the same time, to explain that the Order, which has been assented to by the Colonial and India Offices, was passed in response to representations made to the Lords of the Judicial Commit- tee from many quarters as to the inconvenience and expense of the existing practice in cases where a Respondent does not enter an Appearance.

3. The object of the Order is, on the one hand, to supply a method by which an Appellant may set down an Appeal ex parte without having to take out Appearance Orders against a non-appearing Respondent, and, on the other hand, to ensure the Respondent's having ample notice of the Appeal, and a reasonable time within which to appear.

4. As the Order is intended to apply to Appeals from all Courts from which an Appeal lies to His Majesty in Council, it has necessarily been framed in general terms, but their Lordships conceive that its provisions cannot in any way conflict with the Rules for the time being in force in any of the Courts referred to.

5. Their Lordships have observed that in many cases a considerable interval elapses between the admission of the Appeal and the dispatch of the Record. In an Appeal recently heard by their Lord- ships this interval amounted to over three years. The Order in Council accordingly provides for the Respondent's receiving notice of the despatch of the Record to England.

6. Their Lordships desire me, in conclusion, to express the hope that the Transcript Record, or the covering letter of the Officer transmitting the same to England, may, whenever practicable, show that the notices mentioned in the Order have been given to the Respondent, in order that the parties to the Appeal may have the benefit of the procedure provided by the Order.

The Registrar of the Supreme Court of

I am, Sir,

Your obedient Servant.

E. S. HOPE,

Registrar of the Privy Council.

HONGKONG.

AT THE COURT AT BUCKINGHAM PALACE.

The 20th day of March, 1905.

PRESENT,

THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY

ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY LORD PRESIDENT

LORD SUFFIELD

SIR WILLIAM WALROND.

HEREAS there was this day read at the Board a representation from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, dated the 16th day of March 1905, and in the words following, viz. :- "The Lords of the Judicial Committee having taken into consideration the practice under which an Appeal to Your Majesty in Council cannot in the absence of a special Order in that behalf made by their Lordships be set down for hearing ex parte as against a Respondent to the Appeal who has failed to enter an Appearance thereto in the Registry of the Privy Council unless the Appellant shall have previously obtained from their Lordships two successive Orders commonly known as Appearance