1923_MAGISTRATES_ORDINANCE__1890 — Page 105

HK Historical Laws 香港歷史法例 All AI Reviewed

546

No. 3 of 1890.

MAGISTRATES:

FORM No. SS.

..

[s. 98.]

3.

Case stated by a magistrate.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONGKONG.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

Between A.B., Appellant, and C.D., Respondent.

This is a case stated by the undersigned, a magistrate of the Colony of Hongkong, under the Magistrates Ordinance, 1890, for the purpose of appeal to the Supreme Court on questions of law which arose before me as hereinafter stated.

1. At the police court in the said Colony, on the day of 19, an information [or a complaint] preferred by A.B. (hereinafter called the respondent) against C.D (hereinafter called the appellant) [or as the case may be], under [state the Ordinance or statute as the case may be] charging [state the offence or cause of complaint], was heard and determined by me, the said parties respectively being then present; and upon such hearing the appellant was duly convicted before me of the said offence, and it was adjudged that he should pay [or and upon such hearing the appellant was by me ordered to pay] the respondent the sum of [here state the adjudication of fine, sum, or imprisonment and costs, as in a conviction or an order].

[Or, if dismissed] and upon such hearing the said information [or complaint] was dismissed by me, [and, if so, the appellant was ordered to pay to the respondent the sum of for his costs incurred by him in his defence in that behalf, [conclude as in an order of dismissal].

2. And whereas the appellant, being dissatisfied with my determination upon the hearing of the said information [or complaint] and alleging himself to be aggrieved by such determination as being erroneous in point of law has, pursuant to section 98 of the Magistrates Ordinance, 1890, duly applied to me in writing to state and sign a case setting forth the facts and the grounds of such determination as aforesaid, in order that he may appeal therefrom to the Full Court, and has duly entered into a recognizance as required by the said Ordinance in that behalf.

[If the case is stated in obedience to a rule under section 108, recite the refusal and the granting of such rule as follows:-but I, being of opinion that the application of the appellant was merely frivolous, refused to state and sign such case, and at his request signed and delivered to him a certificate of such refusal; and whereas the Full Court has since granted a rule calling upon me to state such case.]

* As amended by Law Am. Ord., 1923.

Page 105


Page 106

Edit History

2026-05-03 10:12:33 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
546 No. 3 of 1890. MAGISTRATES: FORM No. SS. .. [s. 98.] 3. Case stated by a magistrate. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONGKONG. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Between A.B., Appellant, and C.D., Respondent. This is a case stated by the undersigned, a magistrate of the Colony of Hongkong, under the Magistrates Ordinance, 1890, for the purpose of appeal to the Supreme Court on questions of law which arose before me as hereinafter stated. 1. At the police court in the said Colony, on the day of 19, an information [or a complaint] preferred by A.B. (hereinafter called the respondent) against C.D (hereinafter called the appellant) [or as the case may be], under [state the Ordinance or statute as the case may be] charging [state the offence or cause of complaint], was heard and determined by me, the said parties respectively being then present; and upon such hearing the appellant was duly convicted before me of the said offence, and it was adjudged that he should pay [or and upon such hearing the appellant was by me ordered to pay] the respondent the sum of [here state the adjudication of fine, sum, or imprisonment and costs, as in a conviction or an order]. [Or, if dismissed] and upon such hearing the said information [or complaint] was dismissed by me, [and, if so, the appellant was ordered to pay to the respondent the sum of for his costs incurred by him in his defence in that behalf, [conclude as in an order of dismissal]. 2. And whereas the appellant, being dissatisfied with my determination upon the hearing of the said information [or complaint] and alleging himself to be aggrieved by such determination as being erroneous in point of law has, pursuant to section 98 of the Magistrates Ordinance, 1890, duly applied to me in writing to state and sign a case setting forth the facts and the grounds of such determination as aforesaid, in order that he may appeal therefrom to the Full Court, and has duly entered into a recognizance as required by the said Ordinance in that behalf. [If the case is stated in obedience to a rule under section 108, recite the refusal and the granting of such rule as follows:-but I, being of opinion that the application of the appellant was merely frivolous, refused to state and sign such case, and at his request signed and delivered to him a certificate of such refusal; and whereas the Full Court has since granted a rule calling upon me to state such case.] * As amended by Law Am. Ord., 1923. Page 105 Page 106
Baseline (Original)
546 No. 3 of 1890. MAGISTRATES: FORM No. SS. .. [s. 98.] 3. Case stated by a magistrate. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONGKONG. appl Cou KONG. intri state APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Between A.B., Appellant, 4. and C.D., Respondent. This is a case stated by the undersigned, a magistrate of the Colony of Hongkong, under the Magistrates Ordinance, 1890, for the purpose of appeal to the Supreme Court on questions of law which arose before me as hereinafter stated. section > 3 1. At the police court in the said/Colony, at on the day of 19. an information [or a complaint] preferred by A.B. (hereinafter called the respondent) against C.D (hereinafter called the appellant) [or as the case may be], under of the [state the Ordinance or statute as the case may be] charging, for that he, the appellant etc., state the offence or cause of complaint], was heard and determined by me, the said parties respectively being then present; and upon such hearing the appellant was duly convicted before me of the said offence, and it was adjudged that he should pay [or and upon such hearing the appellant was by me ordered to pay] the respondent the sum of [here state the adjudication of fine, sum, or imprisonment and costs, as in a conviction or · an order]. . [Or, if dismissed and upon such hearing the said information [or complaint] was dismissed by me, [and, if so, the appellant was ordered to pay to the respondent the sum of for his costs incurred by him in his defence in that behalf, [conclude as in an order of dismissal]. 2. And whereas the appellant, being dissatisfied with my deter- mination upon the hearing of the said information [or complaint] and alleging himself to be aggrieved by such determination as being erroneous in point of law has, pursuant to section 98 of the Magistrates Ordinance, 1890, duly applied to me in writing to state and sign a case setting forth the facts and the grounds of such determination as aforesaid, in order that he may appeal therefrom to the Full Court, and has duly entered into a recognizance as required by the said Ordi- nance in that behalf. [If the case is stated in obedience to a rule-under-section 108, recite the refusal and the granting of such rule as follows:-but I, being of opinion that the application of the appellant was merely frivolous, refused to state and sign such case, and at his request signed and delivered to him a certificate of such refusal; and whereas the Full Court has since granted a rule calling upon me to state such case.] * As amended by Law Am. Ord., 1923. on t mucl point 5. stanc had ¿ circu 6. 7. by th 8. quest stated If the fo 9. fa doi shall or boo form 10. the le defend 11. decisio If i the fol 12. opinio Dat Page 105Page 106
2026-05-03 10:12:33 · Baseline
View content

546

No. 3 of 1890.

MAGISTRATES:

FORM No. SS.

..

[s. 98.]

3.

Case stated by a magistrate.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONGKONG.

appl

Cou

KONG.

intri

state

APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

Between A.B.,

Appellant,

4.

and

C.D., Respondent.

This is a case stated by the undersigned, a magistrate of the Colony of Hongkong, under the Magistrates Ordinance, 1890, for the purpose of appeal to the Supreme Court on questions of law which arose before me as hereinafter stated.

section

>

3

1. At the police court in the said/Colony, at

on the day of

19. an information [or a complaint] preferred by A.B. (hereinafter called the respondent) against C.D (hereinafter called the appellant) [or as the case may be], under of the [state the Ordinance or statute as the case may be] charging, for that he, the appellant etc., state the offence or cause of complaint], was heard and determined by me, the said parties respectively being then present; and upon such hearing the appellant was duly convicted before me of the said offence, and it was adjudged that he should pay [or and upon such hearing the appellant was by me ordered to pay] the respondent the sum of

[here state the adjudication of fine, sum, or imprisonment and costs, as in a conviction or

· an order].

.

[Or, if dismissed and upon such hearing the said information [or complaint] was dismissed by me, [and, if so, the appellant was ordered to pay to the respondent the sum of

for his costs incurred

by him in his defence in that behalf, [conclude as in an order of dismissal].

2. And whereas the appellant, being dissatisfied with my deter- mination upon the hearing of the said information [or complaint] and alleging himself to be aggrieved by such determination as being erroneous in point of law has, pursuant to section 98 of the Magistrates Ordinance, 1890, duly applied to me in writing to state and sign a case setting forth the facts and the grounds of such determination as aforesaid, in order that he may appeal therefrom to the Full Court, and has duly entered into a recognizance as required by the said Ordi- nance in that behalf.

[If the case is stated in obedience to a rule-under-section 108, recite the refusal and the granting of such rule as follows:-but I, being of opinion that the application of the appellant was merely frivolous, refused to state and sign such case, and at his request signed and delivered to him a certificate of such refusal; and whereas the Full Court has since granted a rule calling upon me to state such case.]

* As amended by Law Am. Ord., 1923.

on t mucl

point

5.

stanc

had

¿ circu

6.

7.

by th

8. quest stated

If

the fo

9.

fa doi

shall or boo form

10.

the le

defend

11. decisio

If i

the fol

12.

opinio

Dat

Page 105Page 106

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.