to issue a tenancy declaring the person named therein to be the tenant. In the register of the pawn shop and land, The tenant under this license pays a monthly rent and is understood to hold the tenancy for life and independently.
In or about 1869 a licensing was granted to one Li Sik Shin for Lan No 2 in the Western Market.
By an agreement dated
2 Feb
In 1876 Li Sik Shin took into partnership Chan Kam Fong and a new license was issued which is said to have been last renewed.
Chan Kam Fong says that his name was entered as a co-tenant and the Registrar says that he was entered as a partner, but there is no mention of this in the Registry which is by ordinance prima facie evidence of the facts therein appearing.
In his affidavit, it is said that the clerk who made the entry is prepared to swear that it was so entered by mistake.
Li Sik Shin died intestate some years ago and the business was carried on by Chan Kam Fong who paid the rent for the land.
Li Sik Shin died in August '85 and Chan Kam Fong applied for a new license and in the alternative for the tenancy.
A license was granted in 1876 alleging that the original had been lost and the Renting Register accepted $5200 for the lease.
The land rent was $4.20 a month.
Chan Kam Fong then appealed to the Court and the matter was referred to the Attorney General, Mr O'Malley, who admitted that there were doubts about the correctness of Chan Kam Fong's claim and recommended that the Court should settle the matter with the persons who tendered for the land.
Thereupon the case was again brought before the Court on appeal by Sir: Goronwy, who decided that the land should be granted to Chan Kam Fong and an arrangement be made with the tenderers.
Chan Kam Fong states in his petition that some time in February the Renting Registrar had told him that he would receive back his license and that on the faith of this assurance he had continued his business and entered into several large contracts for the supply of poultry.
In April the question was reopened by the Acting Attorney General (Mr Wherry) who advised that Chan Kam Fong was admitted as a partner only and had no claim to the lease.
The land reverted to the Crown on the death of Li Sik Shin and that he should have received a duplicate of the license.
On 14 June a duplicate license was issued but almost immediately withdrawn when it was discovered that Li Sik Shin was dead.
The Renting Registrar applied for instructions and the matter was referred to the Council who advised that the license should be conceded.
An advertisement was issued stating that the Government intended to resume possession of the land and tenders were called for.
On 20 April the Council adopted the recommendation and Chan Kam Fong has been ejected.
He petitions that he may be allowed to remain in peaceful possession of the land at a fair and equitable rent.
The circumstances of the case had come before the Government before the Council had released the property.