November 24, 1897.]
The Puisne Judge-I have not got any records myself. If the Full Court has laid down that a notice of motion is not an applica- tion-
Mr. Francis said he was not aware of that fact. The solicitor on filing the motion took it to the Registrar or the Judge's clerk, who fixed the day for the hearing. In reply to the first point raised counsel said there was no rule or practice of the Court which required the grounds of the motion to be filed. Quite recently he argued the very same point and when he pointed out to their Lordships the specific provisions in the Section of the Code relating to motions their Lordships agreed that under Section 43 of the Code it would have been in contradiction to the provisions of the Ordinauce for the grounds of the application to be stated. Section 43 said "No motion shall be entertained until the party moving has filed in the Court a written motion paper distinctly stating the terms of the order sought."
The Chief Justice-My recollection on that point is that at the preliminary hearing I suggested to you whether a notice of motion should not set out the grounds and when the hearing came on I at once said that I had thought about the matter and I did not think it necessary to state the grounds.
Their Lordships intimated that they would consider both points and adjourned the case until two o'clock.
Į
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
401
The Chief Justice-The time may be short in making an application that way, but as I said it is only a matter of convenience and cannot govern the construction of the Section. I think on the whole it is a right construction and therefore I do not think there would be any use in letting the point be argued further.
The Court then adjourned.
HONGKONG SANITARY BOARD.
1
that is to say, a month after the pronouncement | to the Court? Practically an officer of the of the judgment. It would seem, therefore, Court fixes the day. that the ruling of the Court is in paint and governs the present case. Of course it was apparently delivered without any argument without the point being raised or argued-but it is competent for the Court, if it thinks fit, to do so as to the construction to be placed upon any enactment governing a point of practice, and that appears to be what was done in this case. The Court expressed its opinion as to the! interpretation to be placed upon the meaning; of the words "apply within seven days" con- tained in Section 41 of the Ordinance. We are inclined to think that we are bound by that interpretation, although, as I said, it was not a matter of argument; but any way we both think that the interpretation is a sound one and that the filing of the notice of motion cannot be taken to be an application within that Section. The application there in- tended must be by way of ex parte motion in the first instance. We therefore think the objection of Mr. Slade is well founded in this case and that the present motion cannot be entertained by the Court.
The Puisue Judge.-I should like to say that when I first heard the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents was very much struck with what appeared to be a difference in one notice of motion to apply and the application itself, although, knowing as I do the practice of the Court, if this had been the first ease in which the point was raised. I should have been very much inclined to extend the time; but a similar case has been before the Court before and indulgence was granted, but such indulgence cannot be granted a second time.
Mr. Slade-Your Lordships dismiss the mo- tion with costs?
The Chief Justice-Yes.
The Chief Justice-We think that the Court having ruled in that way as recently as 1893 this Court would not be justified in extending
the time.
Mr. Francis-May I ask your Lordships to direct an enquiry into what has been done since 1893? I think your Lordships will find that the rule has never been observed.
The Chief Justice-Of course if the ruling has been lost sight of by the Court no doubt the Court is to be reprehended itself.
An ex-
Mr. Francis-I think it is in your Lordships power to allow the matter to be re-argned- whether that decision is right or not. pression of opinion of that nature and under such circumstances was actually given after the Judge who tried the case in the court below had left the colony, and fully a month after the judgment had been given, and it was given en- tirely without argument.
The Puisne Judge-He was here.
On the Court resuming after the adjourn ment the Chief Justice said-In this case Mr. Slade, on behalf of the respondents, took two objections to the Court entertaining this motion. The first was that the notice of motion was defective in that it did not set forth the points of law upon which leave to appeal was asked. With regard to that I think we indicated in the course of the argument that in our opinion that objection could not prevail, The second objection was that the application was out of Mr. Francis Without prejudice to any ap- time in that it was made on the 15th of Noven-plication we may make for extension of time? ber, whereas the judgment of the Court below was pronounced on the 2nd November. Mr. Slade argued that the filing of the notice of motion, which took place on the 9th November. was not an application within the meaning of Section 41 of the Supreme Court Summary Jurisdiction Ordinance, 1873. In support of that contention he referred to a case in this court in the year 1893, and said that in that case the point was ruled in the way that he suggested, that is to say, that the application must be made to the full Court itself and that the filing of the notice of motion was not sufficient. Wo have referred to the proceedings in that case. It is the case of Yeung Kam v. Yik Sam Shan and another. It was number 1,024 of the year 1893 in the In that case Summary Jurisdiction Court. judgment was delivered by Mr. Justice Wise on the 6th October, 1893. The notice of motion for leave to appeal was filed on the 9th October, 1893, and the day fixed for making application to the Full Court on that notice of motion was the 8th November, 1893. On the 8th Novem- ber, 1893, the motion came before the Full Court, Mr. Pollock appearing for the appellants. In the Chief Justice's notes of the proceel. ings there is the following note:- Motion of leave to appeal; time for moving extended? until to-day." Mr. Justice Ackroyd's note is to the same effect" Time extended to make application till today." It will be seen that this was the bringing on of the ex parte motion for leave to appeal, and the Court intimated, apparently, that the motion was out of time, but extended the time to make application until that
The Chief Justice-Well, Mr. Francis, we day, that is, the 8th November, 1893. The notes of the learned judges leave it vague as to have considered the point and we agree that the how that leave to extend the time came to be ruling is a sound construction of the Sretion. granted. In order to clear up that uncertainty Mr. Francis-May I venture to call your we referred to the report of the case in the Lordships' attention to the fact that the Full An appli- Daily Press of the 9th November, and we find | Court has no fixed day for sitting? there that the Chief Justice stated that "there|eation has to be made to the Judges to fix some had been an impression that the tiling of a day for the Court to sit. There is no method notice of motion was an application within provided of making au amplication of this des.
e motion. the meaning of the Section 11, but that was an | cription except by ez je incorrect impression and the practice must ? The Chief Justice-That may be an incon-
venience as a re to make application to the Full Court by way
result of the way the enactment is of motion within the seven days mentioned in | Section 41" Then he proceeded to say that "as that had been the practice of the Court hef would on this occasion extend the time for the making of the application until this day so that timight be made on that day," the 8th November,
1 ܰ
|
A meeting of the Sanitary Board was held at the offices on the 18th November. Dr. Atkin- son (Principal Civil Medical Officer) presided and there were also present Hon. F. H. May (Captain Superintendent of Police), Hon. R. D. Ormsby (Director of Public Works), Mr. N. J. Ede, and Mr. H. McCallum (Secretary).
MINUTES.
The minutes of the previous ordinary meeting and of the special meeting held last week were read and confirmed.
A BY-LAW REPEALED.
The PRESIDENT moved That by-law No. 4 of the by-laws made by the Sanitary Board under section 13 of Ordinance 15 of 1894 on the 19th March, 1835, and approved by the Legis. lative Council on the 20th day of March, 1895, and which was published in Government notifi- cation No. 11 of 1895. be repealed from the 13th day of November, 1897, being the date of publication in the Guzette of by-law No. 27 made under section 13 of Ordinance 15 of 1894, on the 4th day of November, 1897, and approved by the Legislative Council on the 8th day of November, 1897."
Mr. N. J. EDE seconded the motion, which was carried.
PLAQUE IN BOMBAY, From the 1st to the 19th October, 167 cases of plague were reported in Bombay; 106 of the patients died.
GERMANY AND THE VENICE CONVENTION,
A despatch from Mr. P. Hatzfeldt, of the German Embassy, London, to the Marquis of Salisbury was laid on the table. The despatch stated that the Imperial Chargé d'Affaires at Rome had been instructed to announce to the Italian Government the acceptance of Chapter 2 of the Venice Convention, which has reference to plague and traffic in Europe.
MORTALITY STATISTICS.
For the week ended 30th October the death rate in the colony was 20.2. as against 19.4 for the corresponding period of last year. For the week ended 6th November the rate was 25.1, as against 30.1 for the corresponding week of last year.
FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE AT THE
DAIRY FARM,
The following letter was read from Mr. C. Vivian Ladds, the Colonial Veterinary Sur- geon:-
"Government Offices,
18th November, 1897. Sir-I have the honour to inform you for the
Mr. Francis-Your Lordship might have been here, but there was a change of judges, and that might have been one of the reasons, It was not a considered why the question arose. judgment of the Court; it was merely an expres. information of the Sanitary Board that I re- sion of opinion and one which your Lordships|ceived notice this morning of some cases of will be putitled to overrule if, after argument, you think-
The Chief Justice-1t is more than an expression of opinion; it is a direction to the practitioners in the Court · -an intimation that that was the correct practice.
Mr. Francis---If it is no tainable and if it has not been followed submit it is certainly open to reconsideration by the Fnil Court.
drafted.
A
Mr. Francis-How is to be done? solicitor must go and get a day fixed for the Full Court to sit. The Full Court is not sitting every day of the week. He goes to the Registrar to get a day fixed. Is that an application
sickness amongst the cattle at the Dairy Farm Company's premises, Pokfulam, and at once went out there for the purpose of investigating them.
I regret to report that I found several cases of foot and mouth disease in two adjoining sbeds and at once gave orders that these sheds be isolated from the remainder.
I further gave instructions to the Manager, Mr. Walker, that no milk must be taken for sale purposes from any cows which are housed in the two infected sheds (this, I found, had already been done), and that all communication with the other sheds upon the same premises be cut off entirely.
I next went to the adjacent Police station and obtained the services of an Indian constable, whom I placed on watch at the Farm to see that my instructions were duly carried out.
I am of opinion that these two sheds should be declared an infected area under Section 2, sub-Section 5, of Ordinance 17 of 1887.
Should no other sheds become infected these measures will suffice, but in the event of the disease breaking out in any of the uninfected ones they will also have to be declared in the infected area.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.