give a license to any one except to the original holder, I submit that he has no moral claim.
off the section of the Government has firm throughout not bear consistently or it was because it desired to give this Chi Kam-fong the full benefit of any right he might have had; but, when all the facts of the case were laid before the Executive Council, and it was seen that Chi Kam-fong was not entitled to the land, since he could not have any rights that his partner So-Yik had, who died about August, 1885, the Council decided to eject Chi Kam-fong and that decision was carried out.
I wish to make a few observations on the memorial which I have now seen for the first time. The memorialist states that for over a year he has carried on business under the style of Ching Chang Kee; that before and since Ching Live I Ki; that before the issuing of his license he carried on the business solely; and has been known to the Registrar General as the tenant of Land No.2, and that the rent has been received monthly from him.
If he does not actually allege it, he wishes it to be believed that he was the sole owner of the business, and was known as such, excepted and admitted by the Registrar General's Department to be really the tenant of the land. This is not correct.
Chi Kam-fong was not the sole owner though he was a partner in the business, and as a partner only, and never as a tenant or a joint tenant – the fact of his having a share in the business does not make him a tenant. In these matters Government has never admitted any claim since the original licensee died in Dec.
$3 Bury