Page:Europe in China.djvu/502

484 of the Companies' Ordinance of 1865 by introducing into it the principle of allowing subdivision of shares. But now the Chief Justice joined with the unofficial Members in their opposition to the Bill, and it was accordingly withdrawn by the Government.

Among the cases tried in Court, during the period under review, there are a few which call for record. On 4th April, 1872, the French mail-steamer Ava, having collided with theBritish S.S. Rona, was detained under a warrant, issued by the Registrar of the Vice-Admiralty Court, and executed by an armed detachment of police. The French Consul forthwith protested against the arrest, which he declared to be a violation of the Postal Treaty concluded between Great Britain and France. The matter was brought before the Acting Chief Justice Ball, who heard the case at his own residence at 9 o'clock at night and ordered the warrant to be cancelled. The following year, when the same ship was sued for damages caused by collision, the Admiralty Court (February, 1873) decided that the ship was not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Court, because she had the status of a man-of-war. Previous to this case, the local Agents of the French mail-steamers had always waived their privileges as mail-steamers under such circumstances. In October, 1872, the Judge of the Summary Court refused to allow the managing Clerks of Solicitors to plead, although it had been the practice of the Court for over six years, and refused to give leave to appeal. Application was made to the Supreme Court, when the Acting Chief Justice, the Hon. (subsequently Sir) Julian Pauncefote, who had lately been appointed to the post by order of the Secretary of State (October 7, 1872), refused to grant a formal judgment but expressed an opinion adverse to the ruling of the Court below. About the same time the French Consul (October, 1872) charged the Superintendent of Sailors' Home, in the Police Court, with harbouring deserters. The case was dismissed by the Magistrate, but it called attention to the fact that the Government claims a right to prohibit the commanders of foreign vessels, whilst in Hongkong waters, from putting men in irons for breaches of ship's discipline.