Denoting Lam Tak Luk and Lam Cheung Fuk, the Purchasers and Assignees under the said Deed of the 10th January, 1883. Receipts extended from 1887 to 1898.
4. It is clear therefore that for at least 11 years the Chinese Government recognised Lam Tak Luk and Lam Cheung Fuk, the Assignees under the said Deed, by accepting payment of taxes from them. After having done so, how was it open to the Chinese Government in the year 1904 to turn round and allege that the said Deed was a forgery?
5. We repeat that these important facts, namely as to the receipt of taxes for 11 years by the Assignees under the said Deed of 10th January, 1883, were not brought to the notice of the Full Court on the hearing of the Appeal by those representing the Crown.
6. In fact, the hearing of the Appeal was of a most perfunctory character. It was practically ex-parte. The Affidavits on the part of the Crown were merely read; there was no proper investigation or discussion of the facts or circumstances of the case, and the Judgment of the Land Court was reversed on what we submit were very insufficient grounds.
7. This only shows the radical injustice and unfairness of the exclusion of Tong Wan Chiu and Ku Fai Shan, who, as pointed out in paragraph 24 of our clients' Petition, were the only persons interested in the result, from appearing on the Appeal and stating and arguing their case before the Full Court.
Hon. Mr. F. H. May, C.M.G., Colonial Secretary.
P.5.
We have etc.,
(sd.) Hastings and Hastings.
We are instructed to bring the matter before the Secretary of State, and will shortly send you a Petition, which we will ask you to be good enough to forward.