The Magistrate—Then can you show me that a man made bankrupt by the Supreme Court of China, who goes to England and obtains credit there under similar. conditions to those alleged in. this case, can be convicted by: the English Courts,—that he. would come within their Mr, Maitland expressed the opin= fon that he would. The Shanghai Supreme Court was, after all, mere-, ly a branch of the Supreme Court It was His Britannic The Magistrate—Really Mr. Maitland! This is a branch of the Supreme Court of England?
Mr. Maitland—Yes, so I would Here we have x Court for jects, tried under British Law.
It is applying English law, English Courts to British subs: jects In China.
The Magistrate reminded him that the Supreme Court for China actually had orignal jurisdiction in China. Other "territorial limita were as defined in the Order in Council. The Court had no juris diction in England, nor even in Hongkong. When Mr, Maitland said this Court was an annexe to the High Court in England he was: entirely against him. "Would you" he asked "'supposing you obtained Judgment in a egse in England, be able to enforce ft in this Court in China simply because it is a judg ment in a Court in England?"
Mr. Maitland—Yes, certainly, if" Tean prove my judgment.
The Magistrate—The High Court of England and the Supreme Court of China are two absolutely differ ent courts,. There is no question of being ancillary. In fact there is a particular clause in the Order in Council referring to Hongkong, and Hongkong judgments, which illustrates that the Hongkong Court is totally different to the Supreme Court in China, In the same way the High Court of England is total ly different to the Supreme Court in China." The whole question, his Worship went on to say, turned on whether that Court did posses territorial jurisdiction in the case. The English Courts had no power to take jurisdiction in any case not committed within the body of the Realm. An offence committed on land abroad could only be tried on the authority of the Statute, The same applied in Shangh:
Mr. Maitland reiterated his con= tention that British subjects in Shanghai are within British jurisdition, and in this case the' charges came under the Bankruptey Act which applied here as much as it applied in England.
The Magistrate's Decision.
The Magistrate said hix mind was quite made up on the point, and he did not intend to take jurisdiction in the case, Briefly summed up, his reasons were that the jurisdiction of HM. Supreme Court in Shanghai was limited by the Order in Council of 1904, Art. 35, which mentioned under which Taw in that Tt could not alter the tee ritorial jurisdiction of the Court. country in which the decree was made, and that equally applied to Shanghai, Assuming they could prove that Haynes had been mad bankrupt in England and that he was undischarged, on those facts the Court could not take jurisdiction. Equally the Magistrate was convinced that if a man were made bankrupt in China and went to England and there obtained credit for upward of £10, no English Court could convict him. The Jurisdiction of all English Courts was territorial, and only where they had statutory offences could they try offences committed out of the Court's jurisdiction. The charges against Haynes were dismissed and he could go.
The Magistrate added that if Mr. Maitland wished to appeal he was able to do 0.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.