284
dismissed
vere
law by tease to whom it was
and an
made
Entrusted official representation was
Governor of
by
che
the laxity of The Justices in enforcing it
The present papers contain and
alleged case of hardship & injustice suffered
by
an individual under this ordinance
In March 1856 Mr. Hudson began to build three houses. On the 16th of April the act was passed. On the 28th of May the buildings
were challenged by the Surveyor General as not being in conformity with the act. The Justices decided that the effect of the act was not retrospective, and that no work commenced before its promulgation should be brought within its operation. And they dismissed the case. Mr. Hudson therefore proceeded with his houses till the 3rd of June when they were again challenged by order of the Governor
but the case was again dismissed by the magistrates, and the works were updated and continued till the 30th of July. At this date a fresh summons was issued against the property
and was refused by the magistrates, whereupon a mandamus was issued by the Supreme Court. In granting the mandamus the Chief Justice expressed his opinion that the magistrates' decision as to the non-retrospective action of the law was erroneous, and in consequence the magistrates reversed their decision, the property was condemned on the 18th August, and demolished. Mr. Hudson had left Hong Kong in July and on his return disappeared.
The case was found that his houses had been carefully considered by Mr. Labouchere, and his decision is
145
He decided that the law was clearly intended to be retrospective - that in the case of Mr. Hudson's retrospective action
Page 284
(No more text is available on this page, the next page is likely to be 285)
...
Page 285
...