more put by for a rainy day, and what oncurred. in Hongkong in 1849 (when the oost of administration in that colony was £250,000 a year and the receipts not above £12,000) is pretty certain to occur here also, In fact all the leading business men here are, I think, naaniinous on that point.
Speaking of Hongkong, the Russians are displaying the same anxiety for the afforestation of their new, but decidedly bare-lookiag acquisi- tion which we onse displayed in Hongkong, and I think they could not do better than examine the system of aff,restation which has wrought such a complete transformation on the once bare hills of the southern island.
TO MAKE OFFICERS WELL-READ. The Russian General Staff has, according to the Beri Vued, taken a singular step for the purpose of enabling poor officers to keep abreast with the times in regard to general and professional literature. It has made an arrange- mant by which such officers can obtain any book they like from the army book-store without having to pay for it until after the lapse of one year.
TRŽ B 880-CHINESE BANK.
According to the Vostochny Vyestnik, the transfer of the director of the local branch of the Russo-Chinese Bank, M. A. A, Maslennikoff, to the directorship of the bank in Port Arthur (decided upon, it is said, in consequence of the desire to establish in the city wherein resides the Vibaroy, the representative of the Emperor in the Far East, a representative bank). is, it appears, postponed, in view of the fact that the branch at, Port Arthur is not quite independent, being subordinate to the Shanghai branch of the bank, a condition of affairs which M. Maslennikoff find undesirable and injuricus.
TRODY CHINESE BASTERN BAILWAY.
The Chinese Eastern Railway has just conclu- ded with the Chinese authorities of the provinces through which the line, passes the right of working and exploiting any of the hitherto neglected coal deposits. The agreement between the company and the Government is already in force and the railway company has begun to work some of the mines. The work is conduct ed under the direction of M. Kalistratoff, an engineer, but where and at what distance from the railway the mines, are situated is not stated.
SUPREME COURT.
Tuesday, 1st December.
IN APPELLAte JurisdicTION,
BEFORE THEIR HONOPB SIR WILLIAM M. GOODMAN (Chief Justice) AND AG. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE).
APPEAL CASE.
lp: Ting), a marine store dealer, who was sentenced on 19th September last to three montas, imprisonment for feloniously receiving three steel keys value $60 and four shovels value $6, he well knowing the same to have been stolen.
[ Decembar 5, 1903.
THE HONGKONG WERKLY ER ESS AND
dismissed without being heard on the ground say you ask for leave to appeal by way that appellant failed to comply with the require-hearing: ments of sections 104 and 105 of the Magistrates' Ordinance of 1890.
The Chief Justice-You mean he ought to have applied for a motion for a rehearing?
The Attorney-General-replied in the afirma tive, remarking that instead of doing so the appellant applied for leave to appeal to their Lordships. The oase came precisely within the principle of the case, decided by the Chief Justice in August 1902--Chan Chi and others v. Sergt. William Murison. By section 105, an appeal on a question of fact shall the words were imperative-be by way of motion for re- hearing. No such motion was before the Court, and the other side had committed the whole error in the case before the Court in 19√2.
Mr. Slade submitted the appellant had com- plied with the section quoted by the Attorney. General, and said that in all cases of appeal from the Magistrate on the question of fact it was laid down that the appeal should be a rehearing. The Chief Justice-Your actual motion la wrong, you know, You cannot argue that The question is whether we shall still hear you. I have given a formal judgment in this same Court, in a similar case.
Mr. Blade-I think that judgment—I am speaking from my meagre recollection-was not based on this point.
The Puisne Judge-It was.
The Chief Justice-Yes, though there were other points as well. The only question I have to consider-I will read you what I said on that occasion: "The Chief Justice said that on the question of fact the motion appeared to him to be defective. It was not in compliance with motion 105 of the Magistrates' Ordinance. In his opinion the proper form was to apply to the Court that the Court will be moved to re-hear." Your motion should have been a motion asking the Court to re-hear, not for leave to appeal, because that has already been giv n by the Magistrate.
Mr. Slade said he quite agreed, and he was really applying for a re-hearing, because an appeal could only be by way of re-hearing and for which leave wauld have to be giren by the Court, The Chief Justice said he did not have to ask for leave to appeal, but to move that the Court re-hear, and on that motion they had to decide whether he showed sufficient ground for them to grant it. If he did then they granted a re-bearing. It was wrong to come to the Court and say he asked for leave to appeal by way of a re-hearing.
M. Slade-I most thoroughly agree with your Lordship, but as far as substance goes it is substantially right.
The Chief Justice-It is substantially wrong; you may ask us to amend.
Mr. Blade-If your Lordships will do that there will be no further question.
The Chief Justice-We are not going to allow. these motion papers to continu, to be filed in the Court.
The Attorney-General-I doubt the power on this Court to amend a motion,
The Paisne Judge-He is only going to ask that it be done.
on fact and law was asked for, whereas the pre- sent one should have been a re-hearing on faot It was exactly what was done wrong on the former occasion
Mr. Sade-Exactly so.
The Chief Justice—You have no right to ask for leave to appeal.
Mr. Slade I ask for a re-hearing. That is what I come here to ask for and, substantially, that is what is asked for.
The Chief Justice-The question is you ask us to amend the motion.
Mr. Blade-Yes, my Lorde, I do. The Chief Justice-I shall not grant any thing in the unamended form. In a former judgment I refused to do so.
The Attorney-General submitted that th Court had no power to amend af the present stage, as they must strictly conform to the requirements of the statute which provided no reservation as to amending notibes,
Mr Blade said that that was another point It did seem extraordinary that the Crown should attend and try to practically juggle a man's liberty by words-by opposing an ap- plication of this kind upon which a man's liberty depeuded. It was rather extraordinary,
The Attorney-General-The Crown cannot, by consent, give jurisdiction.
Mr. Slade The Crown has deliberately waived one objection whichit had on this matter The Chief Justice-There is perhaps nothing in the other objection.
Mr. Blade-Yes. It has been one of the most difficult questions your Lordship would hav had to decide." The Crown is willing to waive that question, and now raises a purely technical one for the purpose of preventing this appeal, which involves a man's liberty. There can be no question of unfairness.
The Puisne Judge-Cannot you understand? Supposing the Crown had not raised the ques- tion, we must tell you you are not to dispute our orders, I should have taken objection.
Mr. Blade agreel that the Court would un- doubtedly have taken the objection because it had already been decided. He was surprised; how- ever, that any objection was taken to an amend. ment, and proceeded to argue that the Court had power to deal with it.
•
The Chief Justice, in intimating that he would like to hear the Attorney-General on the point........ felt bound to say that, wEilshe must insist on hay- ing a motion paper in proper order, sud, had already carefully considered the proper form in a judgment in a former case, in August 1932. Hẹ did not wonder the case might have been forgot- ten because the rules governing appeals from the magistrates were very different from those from the Puisae Judge. There had been a slip and it was no use disonssing the matter. The pre- sent application was for leave to amend the motion paper by striking out the words "for leave to appeal by way of rehearing," and putting to rehear." He was rather disposed prima facie to allow the amendment of the motion paper, s he did not wish to have a case in which a man had been sentenced to imprisonment settled one way or the other simply on the question of the exact form of the wording of the motion paper.
The Attorney General" said he would like to consent, but it seemed to him that an amend ment, even if in order, would be futile, unles Mr.M. W. Slede, burrister-at-law (instructed The Chief Justice said there was a difference the Court not only ordered the amendment but, by Mr. U D. Thomson, solicitor), appeared on between the two cases. In the former, permis-disregarding the statute regulating appeals, behalf of the appellaut, and the Attorney-sion for leave to appeal by way of re-hearing ordered that the amended notice need, not be General, Sir Harry S. Berkeley (instruct.d by
served and the amendment and service by Mr. F. B. L. Bowley, Crown Solicitor), was for
taken together. Supposing the notice, which wa the respondent.
clearly irregular and bad, was amended. What then? The respondent would be entitled say that the notice must be fled and served and when the Court heard the case its attention would be drawn to the fact that the notice for re-hearing, instead of being filed within days from the decision of the magistrate, required by statute, was filed two months There was an essential difference between the Court exercising its ordinary powers of amend ment in its original jurisdiction, and ques-cise of its-
The Attorney-General took a preliminary objection to the hearing of the appeal, as he had intended to base that objection on two grounds -that the appeal papers filed did not comply with the requirements of the Police Magis-appeal; you have got that. trates". Ordinance, No. 10 of 1900, and that
Mr. Slade observed that they simply asked for ad appeal by way of re-hearing
The Puisne Judge-You don't want leave to
T
The Chief Justice-If you ask us to amend we will consider that. I am certainly not going to try the case on this motion paper.
Mr. Slade-We have not got leave to appeal by the documents were filed too late. He way of re-hearing. These are two distinot things. found, however, with respect to the second ground, that although the time allow edby the Ordinance was exceeded three it was occasioned by the not of the the act of the Registrar, for the time hỏ refused to receive the documents into er he was right or whether he not necessary to put before
** Justice remarked, that in certain Vsostion Ordinance provided that any
ig in the Vacation did not count. ttorney-General asaid, he would not * the pointy.
that the appeal be
i
The
Mr. Slade submitted there could be no tion of misunderstanding this appeal. Attorney-General, the Crown Solicitor, Mr. Murison (the respondent), everybody connected with the case knew exactly that it was intended to come to the Court to have a re-bearing. That was what was asked for.
The Chief Justice-Your motion paper asked for two things. First, you asked for leave to appeal, and, secondly, as to how this appeal is to come on, viz.-by way of re-hearing. You
The Chief Justice I fully appreciat point.
The Attorney General proceeded their Lordship's attention to the case Queen. The Justices of Glamorgansh Q.B.D. Law Reports, 24, p. 675, he said, was the leading case to show Court was bound hand and foot in appeal from the Magistrates. Th the appellant the right to
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.