"interest with him in his business to be
"carried on thereon, or
incidentally thereto." But the Ord. does not lay down anything as to how a partner is to be regarded, and I can find no precedent which might
serve as a
guide, though
it is clear that the intention of the
Government has only been to recognize
The above Section also
one man,
who
shows that registration of partnership was to take place before entering into possession. Still partners have been
frequently registered long after entry as in the present instance. So
Git-brim entered in 1874 and Chii Kam-fong,
registered as a partner in 1876. Since Mr. Russell's time, all new licenses have been issued in the name of one
Chii Kam-fong person only his evidence before me states, "I understand from it (the notification issued by Mr. Russell) that the only person the Government recognizes
and
the
to
the original holder"." The terms of the notification in question are somewhat vague; nothing is said as to partners of lessees, nor as to joint lessees. The Inspector of Markets states that he has
regarded it as retrospective, and
I can find
no case in which it has been
treated as such.
Page 219
seems to be,
How
The question then is, should Chii Kam-fong, who was registered in 1876 as partner of So-Yik-him, Yik-him, deceased, be recognized as the lessee of the land? If not, I presume the law should be put up to legal advisers in the usual way. I beg to be furnished
with instructions on
this point.
With regard to the evidence,
a copy of which is forwarded herewith, it seems scarcely
probable that Chii Kam-fong should not have known of So-Yik-him's death when he came to apply for a duplicate license, especially as it was known in this
Office
"interest with him in his business to be
" carried on thereon, or
incidentally thereto." But the Ord! does not lay down __ anything as to how a partuer is to be regarded, and I can find us precedent which night.
serve as a
· guide, though
it is clear that the intention of the
Government has only been to recognize
The above Section also
one mau,
wao
shows that registration of partnership was to take place before extering victo - possession . Still partners have been-
frequently registered long after entry as in the present instance. So
Git - brim entered in 187/4 and Chii Kam-fong,
registered as a partier in 18776. Since Mr. Russell's time, all new licenses have been issued in the name of one
Chii Hame fong person only his evidence before me states, " I under
-stand from it (the notification -issued by all. Russell) that the only person the Government recognizes
aud
üc
"the
to
B
"the original holder "." The terms of the notification in question are cone what... vaque; nothing is said as to partiess of lesees, nor as to joint lessees. The Inspector of ellarkek
ofallarket states that he has
ANXAKERS
regarded it as. retrospective, and
I can find
uo case in which it has been
treated as such.
219
seems to be, cau
How-
The question then sou Chii Kam-fong, who was registered in 1876 as partier of Sotik - him, Yik-him, deceased, be recoguised as the lessee of the lan? If not, I presume the law ._ should be put up to leader in the neual way, I beg to be fiuuished
this point.
with instructions on
H
a
· regard to the evidence,
With regard
copy of which is forwarded herewith, it saus scarcely
scarcely probable that Chic Kam -fong should not have known of So- Yik-him's death when he came to apply for a duplicate liceuse, especially as it was known in this.
*
Fffice
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.