🚀 go-pugleaf

by his father some months previously, the Attorney General
considered the purchaser was _in loco parentis_, [in the place of a
parent] and could not be purchased."

On the two cases to which the attention of the Governor had been
brought, the Attorney General reported:

    "With the greatest respect for the Chief Justice, I doubt the
    policy of prosecuting the woman he refers to, having regard to the
    fact that the magistrate had discharged her for want of testimony,
    and looking to his further report. The magistrate should always be
    supported if possible; and if he discharged the woman, and put her
    at the bar as a witness, and she was used again at the Supreme
    Court, it might look like a breach of good faith to treat her now
    as a criminal.... As to the druggist's case, I think that the only
    thing that can be said is that it would look to be a breach of
    faith to proceed against him now."

When the case was referred to the Crown Solicitor, he said:

    "As to the druggist the parties had now left the Colony, and there
    were no witnesses against him. The purchase by Chinese of young
    orphans, and indeed of others whose parents are too poor to keep
    them, is a social custom amongst the natives, and is of constant
    occurrence in Hong Kong. These 'pocket-children,' as they are
    usually termed, are often treated with great affection, and are
    far better off than they were previous to their being so bought."

It was the 30th of May when the Chief Justice called the Governor's
attention to these cases. It was July before the Attorney General and
the Crown Solicitor seem to have paid any attention to the cases. It
was no wonder, then, that some of the witnesses could not be found.
Meanwhile the Governor had left the Colony for a trip to Japan, and
W.H. Marsh was acting in his place. On July 16th, he returned answer
to the Chief Justice that he had now receive