40
Mr. Pollook-I think your Lordships will find that the practice has been to give some notice to the other side.
case
come8 оп
10
Te-
The Chief Justice-I think we see our way clearly to make a very definite practice. An application for leave to appeal is made ex parte, then, when a
as it comes on now, a case has to be presented to the Court which will enable the Court to exercise its discretion. Discretion ६५ in Beotion 35 either to deal with the case solely on the evidence originally laken, or
xamine any witness originally examined, or admit farther evidence or try the case de
novo. Then, when
is any evider de presented by the appellants, the Court decides what practice it shall adopt in the future. So that what we have got to do now is to hear the case Mr. Slade has got to put forward, on which we shall decide what course we shall tike at the next hearing. You will get notice whether we will try the case de novo, take fresh evidence, or re-examine the witnesses.
Mr. Pollock-Do your Lordships hold that is the correct procedure; without any affidavit being on the file?
The Chief Justice-We d't think any affidavits are necessary.
We will deoid what form the cage shall take Lereafter.
Mr. Slade-I am prepared to prove that the whole of these books from begi ning to end are in the same handwriting, and it is apparent on the face of them that they were written out in large blooks at one sitting.
The Chief Justice-How many books there ?
ате
Mr. Slade-Over twenty. Proceeding, Coun- sel referred their Lord: hips to various entries which threw a strong suspicion on the genuine. ness of the books. First of all, wherever Li- Chi-chin's name appeared, it was always put dɔwn as
"Li Chi-ohin, partner," and so was his wife's. Those books were not written in that way for home consumption only. Obviously those entries were put in for a purpose; th y were not mere bookkeeping, or put there for the information of the firm. Counsel would show that on June 29th, a few days before the firm closed, eighteen promissory notes were issued to various women. These notes, though all payable on demand on the face of the book, purported to be renewals. In several instances items in the books were not correct, and transactions said to have takes place never took plio. Mr. Slade would prove from the mouth of an expert accountant who had been through the books and balinced them, that they were incorrect. The balance was shown on the face of the books as $1,50; as a matter of fact, on adding it up, it came to 8:99. There was a curious entry in the books which showed that $3000 had been paid by ᏞᎥ Chi chin 83 capital on certain date. Fifteen days later
$ was shown to have recived interest on that money. The next point he wished to raise was that the handwriting on the covers of the books was not the sane as the writing inside. The man who wrote the covers of the books, and who refused to write the inside, would be all-d. He was taken to a house by Lau Hing-pong, where he found two
of books, old und
asked to write books in the on the covers of the
the cld, the writing same way 88 he wished to know why they so particular, and was informed that the new set of books was for the inspectors of the Court (8anitary Commissioners). Then he was asked to draw out a partnership agreement between Lan Hing-pong and Li Chi-obin but refased to do so unless he got instructions from Li Chi-chin. He was again seat for a few days before the case came on for hearing in the Summary Court, and asked to re-write the covers of two books which had been spoiled, and he would describe what steps Lan Hing-pong took to make these new books look old.
one new.
sets When
new
on
be
One
Were
Their Lordships decided that the case should be tried de novo on a date to be fixed by the Court
Certain British merchants recently asked the Waiwapu, through the British Minister, for permission to develop certain gold mines at Langfushan in Shantung province. It is re. ported that it is improbable that the Waiwapa will comply with the request.
|
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
Thursday, January 16th.
IN A PELLATE JURISDICTION.
BEFORE THE FULL Court.
THE BROKEN CHARTER.
[January 20, 1908.
prisoner. I may say at once I am merely taking this point because I regard it my duty to di so.
•
The Chief Justice-You contend that on a discharge on habeas corpus no further applica tion for extradition can be made.
The Attorney-General-Not in respect of In the matler of the Lombard 8.A Co., that offence. The case quoted by Sir Hoary appellants, and Messrs. Carlowitz & Co., Berkeley had no bearing on the subjest. It respondents. Sir Henry Ferkeley, K.'', in: would apply in the case of the Fall Court hear- struoted by Mr. R. D. Atkinson (of Messrs.ing an application in the first instance. In this instance the application was not mide to the Deacon, Looker and Deacon) represented the appellants, and the Hon. Mr. H F. Pollock, Full Court at firs K.C, instructel ly Mr. Jackson (of Messrs. Jabuson, Stokes and Master) appeared for the respondents.
+
The Court decided that there was an appeal. Sir Henry Berkeley then read tie declaration of Iu Kai-shi g in support of his motion to the Sir Henry Berkeley moved formally for leave Court for h beas corpus, and raised the point to appeal to the Privy Council from the judg|that the warrant issued by the Chinese should hief have been more precise. The prisoner was ment delivered by his Lordal ip the Justice in the case of Carlowitz & Co. against charged with armed robbery within the wide Tb it was A warrant the Lombard 8.8. Co. on the usual terms, the jurisdiction of China.
which no asgis'rate could istus for the arrest appellan's paying the cost.
of a British subject, and if he did, it would be quished. On such a warrant it would be pose ble to prove anything later on, and if only n lucement t ere would be given suficient witnesses to co us forward. On the warrant there was nothing to show who it was the prisoner was supposed to have robbed, where it was the man committed the offence, or whoo.
Leave was granted on cos's being paid, and security given as required by the rules.
THE WATOW REFORMER.
In the matter of lu Kai-shing aling To Chan, and in the matter of the Chinese Extradition Ordinance No. 7 of 1889. Hon. Mr. W. Rag Davies Attorney-General, instructed by Mr. G. E. Morrell from the Crown Solicitor's offies, appeared on behalf of the Crown, and Sir Heor Berkeley, K., iustrusted by Mr. Otlo Kong Sing represented the
Sir Henry Herkeley stated that there had ben filed on behalf of the fagitive from Chius, In Kai-sbing, who was detained in Victoria Jail, a notice of appeal from a decision of Mr. Ju tice Wise refusing an application for habens Corpus. There had teen concurrently filed a substantive notice of motion before the Court in its original jurisdiction to grant habeas co p ́8. It would be for Lim to satisfy the Court that the pr ceriure was rular, that the Court had the power to entertain the appeal, and also that it had the power alternately to entertain As Counsel the motion for habeas cor; us. it tended
not
to
ая
raise ques ions which he bad raised on the appeal, most important and far reaching points, he would prefer their Lordships to treat the mat er mo in for the grinting of a role for habeus conprus. He could then bring before the Full not submitted to the Curt points be bad iudividual judges.
The Alto ney-General-Perhaps I had batter shorten matters by saying I shall o atend that no appeal lies in this procedurs.
-
The Puisus Judge-Because it is crimina!? The Attorney-General – Yes, and furthermore I shall contend that your Lordships have no power to gran' a inle of discharge,
|
The Chief Justice-Vader section 10 A magistrate has to commit if the evidence is su ‘h as would justify his committal for trial at the Supreme Court. Does that carry with it the necessity that the warrant abould be in the sam› form?
Sir Henry Berkeley -Yes, my Lord. There must be the same precision and particularity in a warrant under extradition proceedings as in other proceedings. This man has been in Jail since Jina 24 h, and it is now January
16th.
The Chief Justice-That is a very important question.
defence lad a
not
ir Henry Berkel-y put it to their Lordships that the Court tried everythin: in fuverum liberatur. A man could not be arrested on a war aut charging him with armed robbe y la the British Empire, and people ba brought to say that he robbed them some months previously in Syday. What Court would listen to such an allegation as tha: ? What possible means of on such a warrant? Che Here oa Jane danger was apparent at once 21th there was a reward out for the prisoner as a rebl leader, and later he is arrested on a charge of arm d robbery because it was known t'at the British Government would
rabe!. This Court ought, by extradite a discharging the prisoner, to show its disappro- bation of the i‹sang of such warrants by which persons are to ba deprived of their liberty. Another objection which he wished to raise was a very serious mitter, as it pal the Court in a position in which it would have to doide the validity of a Colonial Ordinance, and there was DO doubt that the 8 preme Court of every Colony had the power to do that. Not only had it th power, but it was the Court's daty to pronounce defuitely upon the validity, if the qu sion of validity was raised. The Colonial | Legislature of Haukong as snob, had no jurisdiction byon the territorial limits of The Colony. It is laid
Uuless such validity were give i Sir Henry Berkeley-That is 0. down that a min has the right to go to every Court in the rea'm, including the Appeal Court. The Chief Justice-Ar you go.ug to pross this point, Mr. Attorney? If so, we ought to hear you.
The Chief Justice--Is not that governed by what took place in the other hb as corpus I think we c38; the cas of 8-ven witnesses? will leave it to the Attorney-General to sub. stantiate his point.
Sir Henry Berkeley-As for the motion for habe 18 corpu, I will refr yoa to 1 ire Jackson. I want to do as was done in that case, more the Court alle uately.
The Pai-ne Judge- It comes to this; that y u can move for a hubeus cor us in any court in the Colony?
The Attorney-General-I should ik to say som-ting on both points,
The Chief Justice- I we were with you we should not bear Sir enry Berkeley further.
The Attorney General submitted that no appeal lay in this case from the decision of the This was learned judge discharging the rule. tantamount to an a peal from a criminal trial. I'radition Ordin- The magistrate, under the ance, committed the fugitiva crimind, and the lear ed judge was asked to make a rule absolute reversing the decision en a criminal matter of the Court below.
The Chief Justice-The test of a criminal matter would be whether a discharge was equivalent to an acquittal,
The Attorney-General- Assuming the learn
|
+
it by the Imperial Gwerumen', as in the case of the Merchaut Shipping Act, the Colonial Legislature was subordinate to its charter, sad could only legislate within the limits dessoribəd by the charter and for the peace, good order, and good government of Hongkong, within the limits of the territory of Hongkong." submitted that the Ordinance which provided for an offeno committed beyond the limits of Houk ng, and for the deportation of such a person beyond the limits of the Colony, WAI obriously an BI CERS of the powers of the Legislature.
The Chif Justice-The case is really this: there is a trea'y entered into between our Sovereign and the Empire of Chins. The Ordinance is passed and put into operation.
Sir Henry Berkeley-The King could not, by assen ing to an sot of the Legislature, extend its powers beyond those conferred on it by the
charter
The Chief Justice-In a Crown Colony the ed judge had made a rule absolute, it would | King has power to legislate by Order-in-Council, have been tantamount to an acquittal of the and can exercise any rights he likes in that way.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.