329
yfregorg need bad yard ‚ć‡ I
nexet even binow yert Holdw
.beelvbe
I8VOWO!!
e
TS ATAS
attached to the deed if it had been really registered in the
Magistracy was not produced, and the claimants stated that it
had been lost.
#
odd moqu Judæla‡ ob ton bib yedi
eild 4 ceft zeltmaq es beħba ed of nottom risdd to moldoster
fernteď odw,etnamiaio eft to aband sit ni viszións Isenga (anet e'foamiob brotts of eidam etew 8 sem on vfIkoldustq to theo [[:t end eroteď bejuezarger ton enow yiinsupeeпoo bas
art to toeinen edt 70" Noeker TedtonA
91ow vod: Jerit need over triyim Iseqqe snið hneteb of atnambalo botastiqmt grow vedd dotdw ni buat↑ bna rennot edit Jørð bleytB
.betevooaib ed dint
.bes to VYBRTOP
bareto ater erit tødt egalis etenofildəq 97
01 betah basb and defit asw job fur and to noteloob sa to
...I) altijmrisiq ərit dołów rebnu,{@ +istrx?) 8881 , YTSunaï
bus, 1977ot a new,bшmore ads of atrial" "tant misio (atnemielo
of demond zaver vitnetzqqe TOYSWON
€
BAW fi Jant batata vend
noed doet rt her! beeb biss erit tard to sit to molinetta erit
to norus a'atenteins: ent to vitetysä haal en ni berstalger
JottelⱭ no nee wit
si arenoti÷s¶ sat to themetste aldT
ellt edd no divabite ant yd rworfe at as Jogtooni visjuioeds to edendalye: nord Zul saw mly yď obam brod omerquà ant mi
ert riotriw ni
(raɗmesed .JSI and no Joliet no mug add
a el & beyism beeb alɗt Jarit ,agnirt merido degnome,BajaÍA di moqu Isee on tend bra berisonso ad of tɗnuo bna VI89707 (etantains no nu? era to tarit ed of galdroqwq lsea sit .s.1)
.VvanteigaM no mu? en3 to Iama ant don al
to moldsteiger sɗt to consbive yino sit
stentatge ødt Molde fase art to nofaasrqat ødt et boob atrit
a od ot bonafoeh Isee entunan add to ybotawa odt bad onw
need ever binoda notrïw bre-beeb to "İM İAX” ONT .VI89101
beroetta
Tax Receipts,
It is true, as alleged by the petitioners,
that a number of tax receipts were put in and were before the
Court on the hearing of the appeal and that these receipts show-
-ed that the payer of tax was Yut Ying, but there was nothing
on the face of the receipts to identify Yut Ying with the
claimants Lam Cheung Puk and Lam Tak Luk; the connecting link being supplied by the deed which is a forgery.
These tax receipts showed that Yut Ying
paid fishing taxes in respect of undefined area in the district
of Sun on held by "ancestor Lam Kwai Fuk". Kowloon is not men-
-tioned on the tax receipts.
The Government made enquiries with regard
to the ownership of the fishing rights represented by these taxes and discovered that these rights belonged to the Lam clan of Chek Mei in Sun On; the fishing rights having been granted originally to Lam Kwai Fuk and that the rights were limited to the digging for shell-fish catching fish and breaming boats.
The head of the Lam clan deposed before me
that he had never heard of the alleged sale of these fishing rights in 1883 (the date of the forged deed), and that there was no such person as the Yut Ying named in the deed of 1883, and that the claimants had no power to sell the fishing rights of the clan to any person.
The Government being satisfied with the trustworthiness of these statements afterwards paid to the heads of the Lam clan a sumof $1,400 as compensation for all the fishing rights claimed by the clan in Kowloon City Bay.
This compensation was paid as a matter of
grace