7
309
Assignment of the land from Chim Yee() and Keng sui ( 1 ) descendants of Ancestor Lam Kwai Puk (†) to Lam Tak Luk and Lam Cheung Fuk the descendants of Ancestor Yut Ying (§).
A number of tax receipts were put in and were before the Court on the hearing of the Appeal. These re- ceipts,which extended from the 13th to the 24th years of Kwong Sul (1887 to 1898), shewed that the payer of tax was Yut Ying i.e. Lam Cheung Puk and Lam Tak Luk. Therefore it is clear that the Assignment dated the 10th day of January 1883 was registered and recognised by the Chinese Authorities, and that taxes were received from the Assignees under such Assignment from the years 1887 to 1898. Under these circumstances it is difficult to understand how the deed could be held to be a forgery. This point however was not referred to by those who represented the Government, and apparently escaped the notice of the Full Court.
28.
The said Tong Wan Chiu died on the 27th.February 1906 and Probate of his Will was on the 24th.April 1906 granted unto your Petitioners Tong Tse Shi and Tong Chan Shi by the Supreme Court of Hongkong in its Probate Jurisdiction.
29.
Your Petitioners respectfully submit for Your Lordship's consideration that, under the cir- cumstances Tong Wan Chiu and Ku Fai Shan were amply justified in relying upon the Judgment of the Land Court, and in completing the purchase of the said property in reliance upon the said Judgment. 30.
Your Petitioners therefore humbly submit that under the circumstances above related they are entitled to compensation for the loss and damages which they have sustained and for the costs and ex- penses which they have been put to in this matter.
31.
Your Petitioners would point out that, whether there has been any fraud or not connected with the matter, it has never been suggested that Tong Wan Chiu and Ku Fai Shan were parties to any such fraud. When they completed their purchase they simply relied on the Judgment of the Land Court which was then indefeasible, and which under the law gave the claimants in the Land Court or their assignsss a vested right either to a title to the land in question or in the alternative to compensation. 32.
Your Petitioners again beg to call Your Lordship's attention to the fact that the Judgment of the Land Court was delivered on the 4th day of December 1901; that Tong Wan Chiu and Ku Fai Shan did not complete the purchase of the property until the 29th day of December 1902; and that the Government
of Hongkong took no steps to obtain a reversal of the Judgment of the Land Court until the month of August 1903.
33.
The Government of Hongkong obtained the reversal of the Judgment of the Land Court by means of ex post facto legislation of a very belated type, and your Petitioners would humbly submit that it is an accepted principle of such legislation that it should not be allowed to prejudice or affect rights duly and properly acquired, or acts done in good faith,before the date of such legislation, and in reliance upon the law as it stood at the date when such rights were acquired or acts done. 34.
Your Petitioners have applied to the Government of Hongkong for compensation but the said Government has refused to pay to your Petitioners any such compensation.
35.
The following correspondence has passed between the Colonial Secretary and your Petitioners' Solicitors in the matter.
"No. 12/1902.
"Gentlemen,
"Colonial Secretary's Office.
"Hongkong, 28th.March, 1907.
"I am directed to inform you that the Governor has carefully considered the Peti-
-8
tion