f
OPY.
Jonclosure 3.
Hon. Colonial Secretary,
C.0
27755
RECO 140 REGR 19 AUG 09
I now forward a print of the judgment fö
His Excellency's consideration: its perusal will show that the
Chief Justice has held every action of the Government and of
each individual officer of the Government in connection with
this matter from 1889 to 1908 to have been wrong.
Incidentally the Chief Justice condemns the
editing of the Gazette and the provision of the Evidence Ordi-
-nance making notifications in the Gazette primâ facie evidence.
In the event the Chief Justice holds that
on various technical grounds and on the merits the plaintiff.
has no case and gives judgment for the defendant with costs.
I will try to summarise the matter as short-
2.
-ly as possible.
In 1889 when it was proposed to construct
the Praya Reclamation Chu Chuen was the owner of the Remaining
Portion and Section A of Marine Lot 53/A, Yiu Chow was owner of
Sections B and D and Mr. M. J. D. Stephens of Section C.
Sections B and D although of small area
possessed most of the Marine frontage of the lot: Section A al-
-though large had no Marine frontage, the Remaining Pertion had
a very small frontage, and Section C had none.
In allotting the Reclamation the Government
divided it in proportion to the frontage only, irrespective of
area, and ignored back Sections.
So 1,526 Square Feet was allotted to Chu
Chuen in respect of the Remaining Portion, and 5,853 to Yiu Chow
in respect of B and D.
Chu Chuen and Mr. Stephens were not satisfi-
-ed with this allotment, the former claimed 6,234 Square Feet,
the latter 308.
Prolonged correspondence and negotiations took place but no agreement could be arrived at between Chu
Chuen and Yiu Chow.
The Reclamation Ordinance required lessees
to