1
1
نیم
321
Claimants
Wo; the Crom or the
The Chief Justice
delay That we ord danding with is bethan a certain de-
cision 12.0 a correct decision.
12. Glede proce-dɔd to argue that the Ordinance under
vilch the doch and obtained loare to appeal did not con-
thin ang suformce to purchasers from original claimants,
on dich point thuir position #brelutely unaffected
by Un. Ordinanon, the Oldinance indeed was an attempt on
the part of the Goverment to get behind a honest, open
speculation in land m de by his clients two years ago,
and Vithout paying compencation. T. & the Court had to
decide was not the question whether the Land Court ad-
judged right of the facte before them, but who was on-
talled to this lid.
The Puise Judgo
The Chief Surtice
Wo sro not going to do that.
It is an orpoal ageinet a deci-
cion.
Mr.folde I aph it it dut I ang to the subject-
matter of a cube,
The Attorney General in hie reply stated that his
friend minconceived his position, end that cheir Lord-
ships would be travelling out of their proper course if
they were to put his cliente in on respondents. At the
time the case was before the and Court tuge persons
did not cxiut, so that civir presence in the land Court
XXXH vas not neccusay at 611. Therefore they could not
be parling in an uppoud egalnet a docision of the Land
Couch. Way the delay, till within a fow drys of the date
fixed by the Court for the hearing of the enso, in apply-
ing for tauno men to be made ruspondentn? There vos ab-
solutely no answer to his Lordships qucation. To (the
Attorney General) was n ́t oven permitted by the law so
accode to this a plication being guantod.. Mis friend had
5.