give a license to any one except to the original holder, I submit that he has no moral claim.
off the section of the Government has firm throughout not bear consistently or it was because it desired to give this Chi Kam-fong the full benefit of any right he might have had; but, when all the facts of the case were laid before the Executive Council, and it was seen that Chi Kam-fong was not entitled to the land, since he could not have any rights that his partner So-Yik had, who died about August, 1885, the Council decided to eject Chi Kam-fong and that decision was carried out.
I wish to make a few observations on the memorial which I have now seen for the first time. The memorialist states that for over a year he has carried on business under the style of Ching Chang Kee; that before and since Ching Live I Ki; that before the issuing of his license he carried on the business solely; and has been known to the Registrar General as the tenant of Land No.2, and that the rent has been received monthly from him.
If he does not actually allege it, he wishes it to be believed that he was the sole owner of the business, and was known as such, excepted and admitted by the Registrar General's Department to be really the tenant of the land. This is not correct.
Chi Kam-fong was not the sole owner though he was a partner in the business, and as a partner only, and never as a tenant or a joint tenant – the fact of his having a share in the business does not make him a tenant. In these matters Government has never admitted any claim since the original licensee died in Dec.
$3 Bury
$
give
a
license to
any
one
except to the
original holder, Isubmit that he has
uo moral clain.
off the cection of the Toverumvent has firm throughout
not bear consistef or
it was because it desired to give thii Kew fong the full benefit of any right Ken- he might have had ; but, when all the fack of the
CORE AVCHE
laid
before
the
Excautive Council, and it was seen
that Chii Kam-fong
ALTHO
not entitled:
to the Lan, since he could not have
rights that his panter
had
any
So-Yik - him, who died about August, 1885, the Council decided to wict (hie Hanne-fong
and that decision was
carried out.
I wish to make a
few obvervations
the memorial which I have now
for the first time.
The memorialist states that for the
year he has
Cast tew
business under
the
carried or
style of Ching Chang
140
before and since
Ching Live I Ki; that before
the exdding of his
carried on
name to the liccuse fie the business solely ; and has been
Avown to the Registrar Ferreral as
the tenant
of Lan No2, and that the rent has beer - received evonthly from hiin.
If he dow not actually allege it, he
wishes it to be believed that he
Owner
of the business,
and wao
1000
was the vole
known as weak,
exccepted and admitted by the Registrar General's Department to be
really the tenant of the lan.
This is not correct.
Ca
not the sole owner
Chough un I. Ki.
feet
KOOL
adwitted not av a
of the Chin
touant,
- partner in the business, and as a
parkur only,
and rever að a
feest
buant or
a
joint lenout – the fact of his having share in the business does not wake him Cucut. In then matters Government has
never admitted
legant eirce,
copt
any
"
to be the
Atw
the original ligenser
Dec.
$
3
Bury
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.