Government, and I was then informed that Committee sitting at the time had found something amiss with regard to Dr. Aponny's claim to Lot 20. Their Report is published in the Parliamentary China Blue Book 1847, for 398, on perusing which I was first made aware of the causes affecting the claim.
of the Lot, namely that it is there falsely stated to have been granted by a "Land Committee" as a loan to Mr. Young for a dispensary.
I beg to refer you to the accompanying copies of correspondence with Government, two letters dated 1845 regarding the piece of ground: the reply from this Government intimates that His Excellency Sir John Davis, after examining the claim, did not see fit to set aside the decision of the Land Committee of 1844, on the subject, and taking the records of the Land Office for his guide, I do not see how His Excellency could have come to any other decision, but, under the circumstances, as there were irregularities about the early entries in the land office books, it is to be regretted that I was not made acquainted with the grounds for His Excellency's decision, when I could more easily have defended my rights.
If you will be so good as to refer to the dates regarding the piece of ground before any Land Committee was appointed, you will find that the land was granted and occupied. This can be proved by the testimony of Mr. Young (and I believe Mr. Johnston), also Mr. AVENO, Licut.: Pedder and Mr. Lena, witnesses to its having been measured by St. Largout before the appointment of Land Committee, on which point they are confirmed from the circumstance of Mr. Young's having left for Macao by a ship sailing 22nd March.
Page 344