317
»
SURRE
COURT
Monday, 23rd November 1903.
perform such covenants and conditions as the said hereby assigned premises are subject to and indemnify the Vendors respectively against the non-payment of such rents and the non-performance of such covenants and conditions. IN WITNESS whereof the said parties hereto have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above written.
SIGNED SEALED and DELIVERED
by the Vendors and Purchasers in
the presence of :-
(Signed) F. BARRINGTON DEACON,
(Signed) [
IN APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
Before Muir MacNair (Chief Justice) and A.L. WENTWORTH (Puisne Judge).
劉生 唐雲超
古輝山
Solicitors, Hongkong.
INTERPRETED to the Vendors and Purchasers
in the Chinese language by
Clerk and Interpreter to Messrs. Deacon & Hastings,
Solicitors, Hongkong.
(Signed) Lo TAT,
RECEIVED the day and year first above written of and from the Purchasers the
sum of Twenty-five thousand Dollars being the consideration money above expressed to be paid by the Purchasers to the Vendors.
LAND SOUTH APPEAL CASES.
(Chief Justice)
Two hearings were begun of the appeals by the Crown against two decisions of the Land Court. In one Lan Tseung Tak and Tam Jak Tuk claimed a tract of foreshore and 500-feet extending from the old boundary of British Kowloon for a distance of 1½ miles in front of Kowloon City and completely blocking access to the sea over that distance. In the other Ng Yap Bun claimed 621 acres of land extending from Kowloon City to Lyemun for about 2¼ miles along the shore.
...
was called.
F.C.80 of Tam TUNG wt and Lam Tak Luk was first
WITNESS to the signatures of the Vendors:-
(Signed) F. BARRINGTON DEACON,
(Signed) *
劉生
The Attorney-General, R. H. de S. MACK, K.C., and Mr. BRADY, instructed by Messrs. C.R. Smith & Son (Crown Solicitor), appeared for the appellants;
Mr. P.P.H. WARREN, K.C., and Mr. J. SLade, Barrister-at-law (instructed by Messrs. Deacon and Hastings, Solicitors), appeared for two parties being joined to the proceedings as respondents and he claimed to have an interest in it as having purchased the land;
Mr. P. PAGET MELLOR, Solicitor of Mr. G.E. BRUTTAN'S Office, watched the case for one of the claimants.
The Attorney-General having expressed himself as satisfied that this motion should be heard despite the absence of formal notice having been served by the other party.
His Lordship asked why this Application had not been made sooner, considering that leave to appeal was granted three months ago, whereas no motion paper was filed till ...