Page 328
The petitioners allege that the main ground of the decision of the Full Court was that the deed dated 10th January, 1883, (Exhibit B), under which the plaintiffs (i.e. claimants) claim their rights to the ground, was a forgery.
They stated that it was, however, apparently never brought to the attention of the Court that the said deed had in fact been registered in the Land Registry of the Magistrate's Yamen of the Sun On District.
This statement of the Petitioners is absolutely incorrect as is shown by the affidavit on the file in the Supreme Court made by Yim Ming Kuk, then Magistrate of the Sun On District on the 12th December, 1903, in which he states, amongst other things, that this deed marked B is a forgery and ought to be cancelled and that the seal upon it (i.e. the seal purporting to be that of the Sun On Magistrate) is not the seal of the Sun On Magistracy.
The only evidence of the registration of this deed is the impression of the seal which the Magistrate, who had the custody of the genuine seal, declared to be a forgery. The "Kai Ping" or deed-end which should have been attached...
Zara. 27.
However, they did not do this, but upon the rejection of their motion to be added as parties they left the appeal entirely in the hands of the claimants, who, being men of practically no means were unable to afford Counsel's fees, and consequently were not represented before the Full Court.
Another reason for the neglect of the claimants to defend the appeal might have been that they were afraid that the forgery and fraud in which they were implicated might be discovered.
Forgery of Deed.