Page
March 28, 1903/
her way, but to give judgment for the full amount willi costs; but he was sorry defendant had of appeared. *
The Court afterwards adjourned.
Monday, 23rd March.
> IN APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR WILLIAM M. GOODMAN (CHIEF JUSTICE)
A LAND DISPUTE.
Li Ki Tong, merchant, 5, Glenealy Road, made an application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Land Court, of 10th January. disallowing tris claim to certain land at Sam shuips marked as BF, Serial No. 1,491, Survey District No. 4.
Mr T Morgau Phillips, barrister-at-law (instructed by Mr. Wei On of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes & Master, solicitors) appeared in support of the application. His Lordship, he said, would perhaps remember that application was unade on 22nd January last and upon that occasion his Lordship directe.l the application to stand over to enable this notes of the evidence to be copied, and an djournment was made for another mouth. The applic tion now camo on for hearing. The point seemed to be very simple Mr. Li Ki Tong claim d. this land and he understood there were other claimants in respect of paris of it. The whole of the claims were disallowed by the Land Court and it was surmised by his client that the reason for the Land Court's decision was that the laud referred to was below high.water mark and, that being so, it might be thought it was consequently the property of the Crown. If that was the reason, the mattor was a very important one which must be argued sooner or later in that Court. If that was not the reason, it seemed to him that this olaimaint was entitled to have some reason given for the decision of the Laud Court. No reason of any kind had been resigned. A deed from the vendor of the land to his client was produced in the Land Court and it was also proved that the original purchaser
Bis Lordship-I suppose all this is upou affidavit ?
Mr. Morgan Phillips--No; I apprehend that no affidavits are necessary,
His Lordship-Certainly; I do not hear statements not supported y affidavits. A man can say anything.
į
Mr. Morgan Phillips contended that it was not necessary to file an affidavit when in the Land Court no reasons were given for the decision. His client was entitled to have reasons given so that Lo might be advised whether he bad a case for appeal or not. His simple application therefore was made on these grounds:
His Lordship What affidavits Lare you filed P
|
Mr. Morgan Phillips--The certificate of value. That is the simple case, The claim was dismissed and there were no reasons given.
His Lordship-They do not give written judgments in the Land Court,
Mr. Morgan Phillips - But thers ware 110 reasons given.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT,
ing the claimant's claim there was plenty | case decided against him of time for him to have made en affidavit ¦ the other side to such setting out in what way any injustice had been the case in Court that the done to him and at least setting out what his rather give up my land.” own prina facie title to the land in question can show me that the Land was. Nothing, however, appears to have been injustics 1 shall give lon dne till the afternoon of Fiday last when a letter was sent to the Deputy Registrar ask`ng for another najoarnaout. That was not a proper course to take,
Mr. Morgan Phillips-I am told, your Lord-| ship, that the letter was sent at the request of the Deputy Registrar.
The Deputy Registrar (Mr. A. Seth-Not at the request of the Deputy Register. Mr. Wei On came to me and wanted the Chief Justice to alter the date of the hearing. I said, You must give me something to go upon. If you write me a letter I will place it before the Chief Jus ice and see what his Lordship sys.". I did not instruct hint
Ilis Lordship-When the Court has fixed the hearing for a special day, if further adjournment is required, formal application by summoss or motion supported by proper affidavits should be male Neither can It ke judicial notice of an inf rmal application by counsel to me in Cham- bers, for although it always affords mo pleasure to sco counsel on any private matter, if they call upon me with regard to judicial matters there should be some proper application pending before me. In these circumstances Mr. Morgan Phillips comes before me to-day and makes formal application for leara. to appeal. His application shows no grounds and it is not supported by any affidavit showing what, prima facie, may appear to be some mistake or error of the Court tolow or any injustice done him; nor is there even an affid vit showing upon what facts his claim is based. That being so I must decline to grant leave to appeal and I do not think I should be acting fairly to those in whose favour the decision of the Land Court was if without some gronads shown I put upon them the burden of becoming litigants in an appeal insolving it may be considerable expense. Mr. Morgan Phillips -There is no successful claimant.
His Lordship-You said the Crown. All the land belongs to the Cr.wn if it does not belong to anybody else.
Mr. Morgan Phillips-Posibly other claim ants may come forward.
|
Ilis Ldship-I have no proference for the Crown clim before any other claim. This is the first I have heard ab at there being a Crown claim.
¦
Mr. Morgan Phillips-I do not know that there is; it was simply a conjecture on my part. His Lordship-I do not know either. It only slows us that we are left in such a cloudy atmesphere that we do not know what the el iman 's claim is. If Mr. Morgan Phillps had shown, even prima fucie, that any injustice had been done to his client, even some apparent injustice which required explanation, and so justified leave to appeal being given, it would have been another matter. When I am asked to grant leave to appeal from a decision of the Land Court some good reason should he shown me and the facts should be supported by affidavit. It was cot intended by the section of the Now Territories Laud Court Ordinance allowing application to be made for leare to appeal that a person should appeal simply to precare a copy of all the notes, often very voluminous, taken by the Land Court and to get a copy of the grounds of the Land Court's decision in order to see whether ander a microscopic scrutiny by counsel scme peg could be discovered on which to hang an appeal, I must refuse the application.
Mr. Morgan Phillips-I apprehend that fur- ther affidavits might hare teen filed if leave to app al had been given.
Mr. Morgan Phillips- given for the decision of
His Lordship-I canno You bave dene your best, your fault. I have no doubt the the claimant or those instruc Unless they have the proper straw- they make the bricks,
Mr. Morgan Philips-So your Lordship d not propose to hear me further P
His Lordship-I am afraid I must depriv myself of that pleasure, 1 do not would servo any useful purpose. I may- that I see this same gentleman did the sam thing the other day-got Mr. Slade to make application and got leave up to 16th April to y do that which he should have done in the 14 days allowed. I went very much out of my way in granting that.
i
largely due to the getting of the notes.
Mr. Morgan Phillips-The delay here
His Lordship-I am with you on that matter. quite understand you could not get the möten tha 14 days and it was quife reasonable to ask for an extension of time in order that you might get them, but you have already had extensions of at least a month each.
The Court adjourned.
Wednesday, 25th March.
In Summary JURISDICTION,
BEFORE HIS HONOUR A. G. Wish (Puiske JudoN).
DISPUTE ABOUT A JUNK.
Leung Shi, described as a single woman, living at 17, Hollywood Road, obtained judg mont on 13th February against Ho Wong, owner of the Tung Tak Li junk, No. 405, for 8515 principal and interest on money lent. After judgment was given in her favour
?
nag Shi issued a writ of execution_and seized the junk. Subsequently the Ho Tung Hop issued in inter-pleader summons-claim- ing the junk to be theirs. Mr. John Hayn of Messrs Johnson, tokes & Master, solicitors, who appeared for the claiminte, in the end withdrew the case as it was stated in evidence. by Ho Shek Tai, master of the Ho Tang Hop, that the money with which the junk was bought belonged to his father's e fate; to which no lease of administra ion had been taken out.
The claimants having complied with the requirements regarding the lease of the estate - brought another inter-pleader summons, Mr. F. X. d'Almada o Castro, solicitor, appeared for the execution creditor. After hearing: certain evidence,
His Lordship made an adjournment as claimant's solicitor was not present, and in respect of that allowed the execution or ditor the expenses of the day.
Tíursday, 26th March,
IN BANK UPTCY.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR WILLIAN
GOODMAN (CHIEF JUSTICE)
"
AN EXTRAORDINARY CABE, Lui Kut Wan, described as sole surviving partner of the Wing On firm, carrying: (
as in Jervois Street, applied for order against himself and the firm a that a manager be appointed for the
His Lordship-I am sorry I do not see my way to grant leave in this case. What happened in this case was as follows:-The judgment of the Land Court was given cu 10th January, 1903 By section 16 of Ordinance No. 18 of 1900, the olainant, being dissatisfied with the decision, and the valus of the olaim being over $5,000, was entitled to apply for leave to appeal, such application to be made within 14 days from the date of the decision. On 22nd January an application for leave to appeal was made, but the parties not being ready to proceed fully that day I allowed the further hearing of the application His Lordship-It is a very good safeguard--- Mr. G. K. Hall Bratton of Mess to be adjourned till 23rd February, 1913. Shortly the application to the Chief Justice for leave to & Brutton, solicitors, appeared before that date an ex parte summons was taken appeal. It is not a matter of courze grant the application. The assols, h ont asking for farther time and that I should fixing leave to appeal. If it were, it would the liabilities, but execution the hearing at a date one month later thau 23rd be a great injustice. If i grant leave to appeal judgment in six summ February. This application was supported by an without any reason shown, from that time for trade had been seized affidavit showing that there were copies of some ward the other party in any cass must either of the bailiff. The sile further notes required. That application was lose his land or becoine a litigant; and we know been postponed until granted, and accordingly to-day (23rd March) po fectly well that when you get notes of 100tion, by arrangement
fixed for the hearing. The party must foolscap sheets of type-written matter there for the execution credito
had the notes of evidence for at least must be rely large expenses in working up a lucrative one. He naked four weeks and if he had any case. It would pay a rich man (who had got the application and complain of the decision disallow- land claims) exceedingly well to appeal in every concern.