Now, the ease before us is one of the' most serious cases that T have ever tried in this Court. The principal charge against the accused that of a most brutal murder of rights in this country or not. That. isa matter to be decided between the two Governments concerned. I am not in a position to defend either the Belgian or the Chinese: side. I am sitting on the Bench only on the understanding that the Belgians have extraterritorial rights, and that understanding is now in disp 'Where a Deputy is sitting jointly' with a Judge, in the capacity of a Consular Official of a third nationality, if the Judge and the Deputy do not agree as to the sentence passed, the usual practice is to reserve the judgment and remand the case for a Consular Official of such third nationality. In the present ease, however, I cannot follow the usual practice, since there is a further difference of opinion, the learned Judge howls that this is not a joint hearing case, Judgment Disagreed With In view of this peculiar unprecedented difficulty as aforesaid, it is only fair, and the only thing to be done, that the judgment should be reserved pending the settlement of the dispute, In spite of my repeated requests, this measure was rejected, and the learned Judge has delivered judgment to which I do not agree. Therefore, I do hereby most reluctantly make the follow. ing ruling, namely:—
(2) That the execution of the Judgment which the learned Judge has. just delivered' shall be suspended pending the settlement of the question whether Belgian sub-Jeets have extraterritorial rights hot.
(2) That in the event of the en-Joyment by the Belgian subjects of extraterritorial rights on this day being proved, the said judgment which has' been delivered without my concurrence shall be declared null and void, and the ease shall be re-tried by a Judge a lar Official or a De-request of the Belgian {General I am sitting in the capacity of a Belginn Consular Official, At the close of the hearing it was found that the learned Judge and 1 did not agree as to the sentence to be passed, and to my surprise the Belgians had no exteatorritorial Tearned Judge was of opinion that yights and consequently this was a mere Deputy ease, Upon approaching the President! of the Court T found that he was! of the same opinion on the ground, that he had been notified by his Government that the Belgians lost their extraterritorial rights and he had since received no. instruction from. his Government to the effect, that the Belgians regained those mits, I asked the President when ther he knew that a new Treaty ad been signed and ratified between China and Belgium. He said that he knew it but that he could not take judicial notice of the Treaty until he was instructed to do so by! chis Government. I requested him to communicate with his Govornment to ascertain whether the Bel-inns had extraterritorial rights or not, But he refused. Again I sugested that the cas? should be remanded pending the settlement of the question. This was also refused, and it was claimed that as the hearing had already been closed there should be no delay in the; delivery of judgment, and that as this was a mere Deputy ease I was: only to protest if 1 did not agree with the sentence.
"Extraterritorial Privileges It is an overt fact that a Pre liminary Treaty of Amity and Commerce was signed on the 22nd November, 1928, and the ratifieations were exchanged on the 28th February, 1929, between Belgium and China, According to Annex 1
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.