This was an appeal from the Provincial Coort at Amoy. It was last before jthe Supreme Court on Drcember 15, jmhen Mr. H.8. Oppe applied for and was granted a writ of certiorari, directed to B. G. Toars E-q., formerly Judge of H. B. M, Provincial Court at Amoy, to remove into this Court, and to quash order of conviction made on or about. Jaly 28, 1910, whereby H.P. Leaver was convicted of illegally arresting the persons of a Chinese and of a Japanese protected subject upon a jetty of the British Concession st Amoy, without legal authorizationand contrary to the! regulations of the British Concession, and sentenced to" fine of fifty dollars, or in default, seven days imprisonment.
The facts of the case were fally set forth in the affidavit filed by Leaver, and published in our report of the former hearing of the case.
this occasion the town Advocate: (Mr, H. P. Wilkinson) appeared for the respondent, and Mr. Oppe again represented the appellant.
The Crown Advocate said that by agreement with his friend—for which thanked bim—and with the consent of the Court, he proposed to take thie case as though it wore a reserved case under Articles 85.6 of the Order in Ccancil, and Roles 67-9 of the Rules of Court. That being so, it would be treated as a stated case on crimios! appeal. He had no objection whatever to the conviction being the following consideration, resalt of a consultation with his learned friend, he learnt that the appellant, who was a Customs emplosé, made n> claim that his acts ought not to. be ingnired into by H. M, Courts in China, Farther, his friend naturally raised no question as to the rights of the Mani Concession at Amoy to police Concession in accordance with the Land Regolations.
The Assistant Judge—This is not supposed in any way to oust the jurisdiction of the British Consal to deal with British subjects in his own way, You do not claim that Council has any exclusive police jurisdiction The Crown Advocste—Under the Land Regalations, with the assistance, and practically under the control of the British Consul, the Council bae that exclusive right.
The Assistant Jadge—I do not know that that is not ultra vires, Mr. Oppe-cave to interfere with the jurisdiction that British Courts have within the Settlement.
The Crown Advocate said that thet being so he frankly said that mistakes had been made in this matter from the desire to bold to principles which his friend did not in any way question. Leaver was not the person who ought to have been proceeded against, His Lordship—It strack us when Mr. Oppe moved for this rale that the position was that the Consal had mistaken a civil remedy for " criminal one. An action for malicious arrest might lie, The Crown Advocate suggested thet the charge should have been one for false imprisonment.
His Lordsbip—Is there " criminal charge for false imprisonment The Crown Advocate said that he had prosecuted Paul Floer in this Court apon that charge, and he bad been sentenced to nine months' for Mr. Oppe—And assault, The Crown Advocate said that the point was that these mistakes were dan arrangement which was in force—a very good arrangemont—whereby the Amoy Customs or employees of the I.M, Customs, should act as Water Pi and assier the Council the poli of the Settlement and territorial waters, appeared to have been misunderstood upon this occssi Any difficulties arrangement should have been settled bj correspondence with Peking. He had to thank his I
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.