The full text of the written judgment delivered by Mr. Haines follows:
This is à prosecution under Section 22 (1) (c) (i) and Section 22 (1) (c)
Gi) of the Betting and Lotteries Act 1934.
The prosecution has proved that, on April 2 and 7, 1941, the accused company published in the "North-China Daily News" an advertisement of a lottery known as the Relief Lottery, Loterie de Bienfaisance S. A. and that on April 9, 1941, the accused company published in the "North-China Daily News" a list of winning tickets in a lottery known as the Relief Lottery, Loterie de Bienfaisance S.A. The defence has not disputed these facts.
1t is alleged by the prosecution that facts proved amount to an infringement of Section 22 (1) (c) (i) and (1) (c) Gi) of the Betting and Lot. teries Act 1934; that by Section 21 of the said Act all lotteries are dè- clared unlawful; and, that the Relief Lottery does not fall within the exceptions to Section 23 of the said On behalf of the defence it was proved that the Loterie de Bienfai-
Mr. Jones' Four-fold Submission it was further submitted for the defence that in England it would not be an offence under the said Act for a British subject to publish in a foreign country an advertisement of a lottery which, in, that country, is lawful; and that, à$ a lottery not for gain was not unlawful in Chinese law, and, as the said lottery wás lawful in accordance with French law in Shanghai, it could not be held that
British subject to an adyér-LEES offence in China fisement of such Pis. ing port of his submission sel for the defence stated that to hold otherwise would be (1) contrary to the idea that èxtraterritoriality is derived from the Sovereign of China; (2) contrary to the right of the Sovereign. of China to retain power to legalize or permit any lotteries in China; (3) contrary to the comity of nations; and (4) contrary to the principles of English Law and quoted a number of cases.
It would. appear that, in other words, the submission is that in Eng; land, it would not be An offence. for a British subject to publish, in China, an advertisement of a lottery which is lawful in ¢, with Chinese law and/or French law, as administered in China, and that extratérritoriality cannot import into English law as administered in China something which was never there.
I do not think that this is the correct view of extraterritorial juris, diction. China has by treaty agreed that British subjects shall be under the jurisdiction of English Law. The English law to be administered in China ts that provided for in the China Order-in-Council, 1925, and amending Ordersin-CounciL Article 39 of that Order-in-Council provides that "subject to the provisions of this Order, criminal jurisdiction under this Order shall, as far a8 circumstances admit, be exercised, on the principles and in conformity with English law for the time being".
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.