renoval for further t A 99 years.
objection
the
are a
2.
I have
exterision
to the gased
to K
ų
but I should b-glad in question, on the descens bestond. Why
bast it is not clear from
neut should Or at a q considerably lower than
the tracing forwarded that of the Site, in you desfatch
despatch under ack / whether that is
intended to niclude.
hand and
Sense any freshore
the any
a
land umall covered
the sea.
sche ふ
4.2. Ishould explain.
that in the case of
a
recent afflication
from the Tanjong Pagar
Dock Co, Ltd, fo grant of a relmeged tinct of land at
nd referred to in your despatil N° 165 of the 2 of april laats
3. Il brad pořit out to d
it is not clear
ita
القتلا
Suigafor, doubts
were
15
expressed If the Atta
Gennal of the straits
Settlements
CA
b
the comfeterince of the Colonial Go? to
make grants of ohen
fexclusive
sea
a
right to the freshn and it was thought
dessiable to refer the
question
to the Law
Offices of the Coun
then finia
54 The Law Offices achsid that
it would be held that
the Common Law of Englan as to foreshore and ofer
seas within the territar limits applied tot
+