322
afked too much in using the Colonial Secretary's letter be construed into a cognition of a full and complete litigation. He contended that the Court should not grant this application for leave to appeal. First of all, the litigants could not be added to the respondents in this appeal because they were not claimants in the Land Court. Secondly, supposing they were added as unsignees, by the Law of China, as laid down in the exposition by Mr. O. Chalmers and Mr. Tew Chik Fing, it was clear that there was no such thing as a lis pendens at all. This appeal had not been held up by the concluding stage in a case pending before the Land Court; they had come there at the end of nearly 10 months, thus the gravity of the position in which the public interests of this Colony had by the decision practised upon the Land Court became apparent. The new Ordinance under which the Court now sat and which governed the Court to appeal against the decision of the Land Court was enacted originally proceeding warranted recourse for the protection of the public interests of the Colony.
The other side had stood over for more than three months that the case was ongoing, and they were fully represented and all their interests fully protected by the respondents.
Mr. Flude, in closing the address of Counsel, contended that the applicants could not be said to be represented by the respondents, as they would be satisfied with some $40,000 whereas his clients claimed compensation for something like half-a-million dollars. In the second place, the applicants had points to bring forward in the trial which were not open to the claimants. Thirdly, under the terms of Section 53 of the Code, the Court ought to make them respondents.
The Chief Justice, in delivering judgment, said that on 7 December 1900 two claimants, Lam Issung Juk and Lam ...
3rd