1
313
..
KY VAYRAN
ILIN
thi
would not grant the whole of the reclamation in dispute to the claimant unless he indemnified the Government against all adverse claimants.
40. In that case the interest of the back Section holder in the lot was trifling and the principal front Section holder for the sake of peace settled with him for a small sum. Litig- ation then ensued between the two front Section holders, one of them claiming to share in the reclamation in proportion to the area of the sections of the old lot, the other claiming in proportion to the frontage.
The case was very ably argued before Sir William Goodman, Chief Justice, who upheld the frontage proportion: this judg- ment was confirmed on appeal by the Chief Justice, and the Puisne Judge, Mr. Sercombe Smith, after full argument.
The loser appealed to the Privy Council who allowed the appeal on entirely different grounds stating however that their fordships did not dissent from the view of the Hongkong Court
that the reclamation/should be divided in proportion to the frontage.
41.
The Respondent then persuaded the Governor to permit an action to be brought in his name to enforce an agreement made by the Appellant with the Governor's predecessor in office.
The Governor was non-suited on the ground that the benefit of the Agreement with his predecessor did not devolve upon him by operation of law; the Chief Justice Sir Francis Piggott re- frained from expressing a definite opinion on the frontage proportion question as it was not necessary to the disposal of
the case.
( this is the findigma and fansanded by Imepo. Beacon,
* BR
Cooker
42.
The net result of that litigation is therefore that two
judges upheld the frontage proportion theory, the Privy Council did not dissent, and the present Chief Justice only expressed
a doubt.
-11-