143
The document (as is customary) is not signed and is not in Yiu Chow's handwriting, and though there cannot be a shadow of a doubt as to the authenticity of it, the strict application of the very artificial rules of evidence followed in English Courts excluded it, and enabled the Chief Justice to take a distorted view of the facts and circumstances surrounding the signing of the agreements by Chu Chuen in 1889, and to misrepresent the intention and actions of the Government at that time and subsequently.
3. The Chief Justice held that Sir F. Lugard had no right of action in respect of the agreements, which he held were ultra vires acts of the respective Governors: but the Chief Justice also went very fully into the facts of the case and decided (amongst other things) that Chu Ping was unlawfully in possession of the Reclamation or at least a portion thereof.
The penultimate paragraph of the judgment, however, shows that the Chief Justice thinks that Chu Ping is morally entitled to a large share of the Reclamation, and he suggests that by agreement between Chu Ping and the Government, the matter should be referred to the Law Officers of the Crown (in England) to determine.
4. The Chief Justice also indicates that Yiu Chow's Successors have a right to ask the Governor (under Section 4, sub-section 6 of the Ordinance) for compensation for the virtual conversion of their property from a Marine Lot to an Inland Lot.
5. There are many points on which the judgment of the Chief Justice might be challenged, but it is highly desirable, if possible, to bring this dispute of 20 years standing to a close without prolonging expensive litigation.
24th June, 1909.
(sd.) F. B. L. Bowley, Crown Solicitor.