32
now s 5. Cap 4
10 The late Mr. G.E. Strickland in the penultimate paragraph of his Appendix I to the Committee Report, 1953
20 (1910) 6 HKLR 12, at p. 53 per Sir Francis Piggott, C.J.
"Committee Report, 1953.
Marriage by Chinese Law and Customs in Hong Kong, (1958) 7 International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 437
2 Chinese Marriages in Hong Kong, Government Printer, Hong Kong, 1960
* TANG CHOY HONG vs TANG SHING MO & OTHERS. (1949) 33 HKLR 58 (concerning succession to land see below), and CHAN PUI vs CHU YAN KIT (1950) 34 HKLR 297 (concerning agricultural tenancies)
* Committee Report 1953. Chap II para 11 at pp 6-7, and Annual Departmental Report District Commissioner New Territories. 1954-55, para 72 (Hereinafter such reports are referred to as Report DCNT 19)
Report, DCNT, 1950-51, para 26 and 1954-55, para 72 This attitude among the Chinese was always the reaction to litigation and possibly was born of a general distaste for their ancient judicial procedure, vide R.H. Van Gulik, T'ang-Yin-Pi-Shih "Parallel Cases from under the Pear-tree". Leiden. 1956, P. 58
"Report, DCNT, 1956-57, para 106
16
Report, DCNT, 1957-58, para 98
para 43
* CHEUNG Sau Tim vs CHEUNG Yo, Lam (1948) 32 HKLR 31
"vide Committee Report, 1953. Chap III, para 31
"ibid paras 34 and 40
Lik
Memorandum of 20th March 1958, addressed to the Secretary for Chinese Affairs
vide McAleavy's article "Certain Aspects of Chinese Customary Law in the Light of Japanese Scholarship." BSOAS, 1955, Vol XVII Part 3. p. 535
For the customs of the land-dwelling Cantonese and Hakka I have had recourse to notes
!