310
"tion of the Executrixes of Tong Wan Chiu and Ku Fai Shan, forwarded in your letter of the "12th.instant, praying for compensation from this Goverment for losses sustained and expenses *incurred in connection with the purchase by Tong Wan Chiu and Ku Fai Shan of certain proper- "ty at Kowloon City from Lam Tak Luk and Lam Cheung Fuk,but that His Excellency is unable "to accede to the prayer of the Petitioners.
*2.
I am to point out to you that the allegation by the Petitioners that the deed "dated the 10th of January, 1883,under which claim was made to the property,had in fact been "registered in the Land Registry of the Magistrate'a Yamen of the San On District and that "this fact had not been brought to the notice of the Full Court, is entirely incorrect.
A reference to the file in the Supreme Court will show that the Magistrate "of the San On District made an affidavit on the 12th.of December, 1903, to the effect inter
"alia that the deed referred to is a forgery and ought to be cancelled and that the seal, upon "it purporting to be the seal of the San On Magistrate is not in fact his.
"3. I am to add that if the Petitioners have suffered lose it is only such loSB "as a purchaser of property is liable to whose title deeds prove to be forgeries.
"I am, Gentlemen, *Your obedient servant,
*7.H.May,
"Colonial Secretary.
"sir,
"Hongkong,11th April,1907.
"We beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated the 28th March, No.12 of 1902 "in reply to the Petition of our clients the Executrixes of Tong Wan Chiu and Ku Fai Shan, "in which you inform us that His Excellency is unable to accede to the prayer of the Peti- "tioners.
"2.
In reply to paragraph 2 of your letter, we are quite aware that an Affidavit of the "Magistrate of the Sun On District was filed to the effect that, in his opinion, the deed of "the 10th January 1883 was a forgery. We do not know how the Magistrate was induced to make "such an Affidavit,but in any case it is common knowledge that Chinese Mandarins are noto- #riously corrupt and unprincipled, and any evidence by such a Mandarin must be received with "the greatest suspicion, especially when the same is given by Affidavit, and is not subject to "the usual test of cross-examination.
"3.
We think however you have not quite appreciated the point made in paragraph 27 of "our clients' Petition in this matter. The point is as follows:- It is evident that the said "deed of the 10th January 1883 (although stated by the Magistrate to be a forgery) had in "fact been recognised and acted upon by the Chinese Authorities for many years past. This "appears from documents which were put in on the hearing of the Appeal, namely, the receipts "for taxes paid to the Chinese Government in respect of the Land in question. These receipts "state that the payer of the tax was Yut Ying, the family name denoting Lam Tak Luk and Lam "Cheung Fuk, the Purchasers and Assignees under the said deed of the 10th January 1883. These "tax receipts extended from 1887 to 1898.
-9-
4.