222
THE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 2ND APRIL, 1881.
THE SUPREME COURT, HONGKONG, 31st March, 1881.
SIR, I have the honour to send to you a Return of cases heard in the Privy Council on appeal from Judgments by this Court, from October, 1866, when I first sat as Chief Justice, to this day, as prepared by Mr. SANGSTER, the Acting Registrar.
2. There have been twenty-five cases in which the unsuccessful litigants have entered into Bonds to appeal, but ten cases only have been brought to the test of an appeal.
3. Of the ten cases, seven were from Judgments for which I am responsible, and of these it would prima facie appear that two only have been affirmed and five reversed.
case,
4. But cases Nos. 1 and 3, ROGERS v. COMPTOIR D'ESCOMPTE, usually known as the "Min"
The reversal by the Privy Council of my decision were Judgments of mine arising out of one case. in No. 1 (as reported in L. R. 2 P. C. 394) was dissented from in LEASK v. SCOTT, reported in L. R. 2 Q. B. D. 373, when that reversal by the Privy Council was fully discussed and held not to be law. All the Judges, Lord COLERIDGE and Lords Justices BRAMWELL and BRETT, differed from that reversal The sums involved amounted to hundreds of thousands of and held to the same effect as I had held.
Dollars.
5. Assuming, therefore, that the Judgment by me in case No. 1 is to be taken as having been affirmed according to LEASE v. SCOTT, L. R. 2 Q. B. 373, then case No. 3 could not have arisen, and there would have been six instead of seven appeals in cases for which I am responsible, and three of them must be taken as affirmed and three only be taken as reversed out of the very large number of important cases which have been decided by me as Judge during a period exceeding fourteen years.
6. With reference to No. 9, LEMBKE v. ORIENTAL BANK CORPORATION, which was a Judgment of the Full Court, it is due to Mr. Justice SNOWDEN to say that the opinion he gave was upheld by the Privy Council. It was my decision which was reversed.
7. I desire to place this short account of the result of appeals from my Judgments on record, because very erroneous statements have been repeatedly made in print on the subject.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your most obedient Servant,
JOHN SMALE,
Chief Justice.
The Honourable F. STEWART, LL. D.,
Acting Colonial Secretary.
RETURN of CAUSses and Matters heard and determined in the Courts of Hongkong during the Chief Justiceship of Sir JOHN SMALE, and which afterwards became the subject matter of Appeal to Her Majesty the Queen in Council.
No, OF CASE.
PARTIES.
Plaintiffs.
COURT
AND
JUDGE.
BRANCH OF COURT.
Defendants.
DATE
OF JUDGMENT JUDG-
FOR,
MENT
ON APPEAL.
RESULT
OF APPEAL.
REMARKS.
1869.
1
Rogers & others.
2 | Lyall.
Bankruptcy.
Chief Justice.
3 Rogers & others,
Comptoir d'Es- Common Law. Chief Justice.
compte.
Defendants.
4 Kwok Asing.
5 Owners, S.S. Rona.
6 Henderson & ors.
Attorney General of Hongkong. Owners, S.S. Ava. Comptoir d'Es- Chancery.
compte.
7 Owners, Glimt.
9 Lembke.
10 Whittal & others.
8 Henderson & ors.
Owners, S.S. Gee- Admiralty.
long.
Chartered Bank.
Chancery.
Oriental Bank Cor- Full Court.
poration.
Benecke & others. Full Court.
Chief Justice & Defendants.
Mr. Snowden,
Chief Justice & Plaintiffs.
Mr. Snowden,
June 29 Reversed.
Common Law. Chief Justice. Plaintiff.
Mr. Ball. Defendants. Admiralty,
Mr. Pauncefote.] Defendants.
Plaintiffs. Mr. Ball.
Chief Justice.
Comptoir d'Es-Common Law. Chief Justice.
compte. Jardine & others.
Plaintiffs. Feb. 19 Reversed with costs,
1870. Defendants, July 7 Affirmed with costs,
1871.
Jan. 23 | Reversed; no costs.
1873.
(Judgment of Privy Council
dissented from by Court of Appeal. See Leask and Scott, LR. 2Q. B. D. 373,
"Case of some novelty, and on which the learned Judge not unnaturally entertained some doubts as to his powers." See Judgment on file.
point.
Both parties held to blame.
June 19 Affirmed; no costs. Judgment reversed on a minor
Reversed. July
1873. July 17 Affirmed.
Dec. 4 Affirmed.
1874.
Plaintiffs.
May 5 Reversed.
1879.
July 22 Reversed.
1877.
Total Cases Appealed,.......
.10.
Affirmed. Reversed,
10.
Of total Cases appealed, 7 were from decisions of the Chief Justice or in which he took part.-Of these, Affirmed,. Reversed,
7.
But reversal in Case No. 1, Rogers & others v. Comptoir d'Escompte de Paris, should, according to the decision in Leask v. Scott (see above), have been an affirmation, and then Appeal Case No. 3 could not have arisen, and there would be,-Cases affirmed three, and Cases reversed three only.
C. F. A. SANGSTER, Acting Registrar.
!
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.