CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8] — Page 312

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed

portador to demotish some part at back of the wall of the buildings. Litigation ensued; H. Stephens soon became defensive & has been awarded £500 damages, & alleged that he has suffered other loss in respect of delay & injury to the fabric of his own buildings.

M. Stanevik & the fort officers maintained the correctness of their Survey, M. Danby maintained his own line. The Court decided "in favour of Mr. Danby's survey".

That decision settled the fee.

It must not be overlooked that H. Danby laid down his line as the agent of the fort on their behalf, it was accepted by the Govt by the terms of 1842 & 1852 & the latter had acted upon it in putting up his building; so that whether as Mr. Danby's line was fairly accurate, the fort board had no rights to depart from it.

Is it within the power of the Govt to arbitrarily abandon this determination for themselves?

The full Kowloon...

Whether H. Stephens has been led into error...

Mr. Stephens has morally a substantial ground of complaint in reference to the Eastern boundary of his land.

And I am in doubt that he has not also a legal ground of claim against the fort in respect of his foreshore boundary - he was granted land up to the 25 ft fort ditch, & even if the foundation was firm in the original lease, it does not appear what right the Crown had to nominate disposition of the ditches without the express consent of the owner.

Still less does it appear what right was vested in the fort to arbitrarily abandon this determination for themselves. In the lease of Witty's lot, there is no mention of the ditches.

The papers do not show that Mr. Stephens acquiesced in the widening of Witty's ditches; but he must have known that the sheet originally only 2 feet in width had been altered, & upon enquiry as to the effect this change would have on his land.

If he had a right to uniformity (& in the new one) I think he could establish that his pulling down his neighbour's wall was a necessary consequence of the new disposition of his land, & that the fort should not be liable for any loss which he has been compelled to bear.

But the fort board ignores him & has one fixed boundary - are worth the proper costs, condemn the surrender and have, I believe, Mr. Stephens surrendered a valuable right which gave him the 25 ft ditch as a boundary, that he has been given a different boundary : & if I understand his complaint correctly, that Mr. Danby's line was not adhered to, resulting in a loss of less than his new lane jumps to grant. If this is the fact, he is entitled to compensation, either by making up the difference from a tier of the 30 ft Witty's start, or by a money payment.

I suggested to Mr. Stephens that he might perhaps have a legal right to more if he wished to go to law - But I think we may tell the Govt that under the circumstances they ought to give him liberal treatment in measuring the market value of the land in question.

Tell Mr. Stephens owing to the incomplete information furnished in this Petition.

Edit History

2026-05-25 18:08:41 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
portador to demotish some part at back of the wall of the buildings. Litigation ensued; H. Stephens soon became defensive & has been awarded £500 damages, & alleged that he has suffered other loss in respect of delay & injury to the fabric of his own buildings. M. Stanevik & the fort officers maintained the correctness of their Survey, M. Danby maintained his own line. The Court decided "in favour of Mr. Danby's survey". That decision settled the fee. It must not be overlooked that H. Danby laid down his line as the agent of the fort on their behalf, it was accepted by the Govt by the terms of 1842 & 1852 & the latter had acted upon it in putting up his building; so that whether as Mr. Danby's line was fairly accurate, the fort board had no rights to depart from it. Is it within the power of the Govt to arbitrarily abandon this determination for themselves? The full Kowloon... Whether H. Stephens has been led into error... Mr. Stephens has morally a substantial ground of complaint in reference to the Eastern boundary of his land. And I am in doubt that he has not also a legal ground of claim against the fort in respect of his foreshore boundary - he was granted land up to the 25 ft fort ditch, & even if the foundation was firm in the original lease, it does not appear what right the Crown had to nominate disposition of the ditches without the express consent of the owner. Still less does it appear what right was vested in the fort to arbitrarily abandon this determination for themselves. In the lease of Witty's lot, there is no mention of the ditches. The papers do not show that Mr. Stephens acquiesced in the widening of Witty's ditches; but he must have known that the sheet originally only 2 feet in width had been altered, & upon enquiry as to the effect this change would have on his land. If he had a right to uniformity (& in the new one) I think he could establish that his pulling down his neighbour's wall was a necessary consequence of the new disposition of his land, & that the fort should not be liable for any loss which he has been compelled to bear. But the fort board ignores him & has one fixed boundary - are worth the proper costs, condemn the surrender and have, I believe, Mr. Stephens surrendered a valuable right which gave him the 25 ft ditch as a boundary, that he has been given a different boundary : & if I understand his complaint correctly, that Mr. Danby's line was not adhered to, resulting in a loss of less than his new lane jumps to grant. If this is the fact, he is entitled to compensation, either by making up the difference from a tier of the 30 ft Witty's start, or by a money payment. I suggested to Mr. Stephens that he might perhaps have a legal right to more if he wished to go to law - But I think we may tell the Govt that under the circumstances they ought to give him liberal treatment in measuring the market value of the land in question. Tell Mr. Stephens owing to the incomplete information furnished in this Petition.
Baseline (Original)
portador to demotish some part at hast of the wall of the buildings. Litigation moved; H. Stephens sono defentive & has have Thay H 500 damages, & alley.. that he has suffered other loss in respect of having & delay & allir the finns of his own buildings M. Stanevik & the fort officers maintained the concctres Survey, M. Danly maintaince his own line. The Court deinder "concutings of the last A in farmer of Mr. Dark's surny -- Kottant decision the fee. fr S.& will of aman accept esfin or as conclusin. It must not be overlooked that H. Danby laid down his line ཙཱི M as the agent of the fort Their behalf, it was accepted by the Got a by the lipus of 184 2 185 & the latter had actest upon it in foutting up his building; to that whether as Mr. Dantijs Living wares for utily accurate, the fort board no rights deport from Is it within the A 7. 185. The full Kowarholu Whether & hair been led into tint ا ہے کیا اسے صبح by Men anxiety Briken Witty 307 a. Subential. Ground on Start: so that her Stephens has morally a. Complaint in refere & the Easton Brunany of his land And book I am in Dure that he has not also a bizal ground of claims Legal against the forth in respect of his Forster Brandary - he wastimant Jland up to the 25 fort dritty that, & even even if en See if the Foundinis as firm in the original laan 1.8. from toho 195 to Lilly that Irons on devory to inches More fire thin sgrave fute Sort Named in the lease, it dos mir appear What right the Crown had to noume dispepsion of the dusfilus without the express Conside They Mighted here chainind you want! Thor Siphons still less does it appear what right saistul in the fort to arbitrarily obodone this determine for themselves to th which hands. In plus lay shop Witty has the lot they somer Noume The lenses a consent of the owner J The paper do not show for Mr. Stephens Acquiesced in The soidening of Witty Sharks; but he must have known that the sheet Aad originally only 2 pect in width been altered, & de third ad upon engging as & the Pffect this ermee have whom the lone & described in the purendent lease, _ If he Right To Uniforms. (& in the New one. And Steamily think he coved establish that his pulling down his highbor's tale, sono i neuhrary consignencum new lustgiption ofhis lank a mistake in the lenses: thinson the fort some not be liable for anyt which he has bare compullide & pay. If the face. M oner of 185 witter in damage sht or costs upon that part of the Cace 心漆 But the foot hard isores him & have one aces boundary - are worth the proper nor the cones, condemn alms the Surrende And have, brit di Stiftens surrenbund au Visitam kit A his fishin base which gave him the 25 fut with shit as a founding, that he has Winich Ds från back a Cas བས gives him a different brumlary : & if I understand his complaint her ally, that my dorky's bio artis daten Arending de gelisoma or laskan results de 389 Igrane fest less than his new lane jumprats to grant. If this is The fact he is entitled to compensation, witten by making up the differener from a thier of the 30 fuch Witty Start, or by a money Gregments The Sitit upon to suggest & M. Stephens that he might perhaps have in leigin right to more if he wouch to law - But I think we may tell is mt the Calind fort that under the circes they ohmere give him liberal heatment in nor mearum too clunky The Market value of the band in Extendating the Mong comfervation. Tell M. owing & the incomplete inform furnished this Petition.
2026-05-25 18:08:41 · Baseline
View content

portador to demotish some part at hast of the wall of the buildings. Litigation moved; H. Stephens sono defentive & has have Thay H 500 damages, & alley.. that he has suffered other loss in respect of having & delay & allir the finns of his own buildings

M. Stanevik & the fort officers maintained the concctres Survey, M. Danly maintaince his own line. The Court deinder "concutings of the last

A

in farmer of Mr. Dark's surny

--

Kottant decision the fee.

fr

S.& will of aman accept esfin or as conclusin.

It must not be overlooked that H. Danby laid down his line

ཙཱི

M

as the agent of the fort

Their behalf, it was accepted by the Got a by the lipus of 184 2 185 & the latter had actest upon it in foutting up his building; to that whether as Mr. Dantijs Living wares for utily accurate, the fort board no rights

deport from

Is it within the

A

7. 185.

The full Kowarholu

Whether

& hair been led into tint

ا ہے کیا اسے صبح

by

Men

anxiety

Briken Witty 307

a. Subential. Ground on

Start: so that her Stephens has morally a.

Complaint in refere & the Easton Brunany of his land

And book I am in Dure that he has not also a bizal ground of claims

Legal

against the forth in respect of his Forster Brandary - he wastimant Jland up to the 25 fort dritty that, & even

even if en

See if the Foundinis as firm in the original laan 1.8. from toho 195 to Lilly that Irons on devory to inches More fire thin

sgrave fute

Sort Named in the lease, it dos mir appear What right the Crown had to noume dispepsion of the dusfilus without the express

Conside

They Mighted here chainind you want!

Thor Siphons still less does it appear what right saistul in the fort to arbitrarily obodone this determine for themselves to th which hands. In plus lay shop Witty has the lot they somer Noume The lenses

a consent

of the owner

J

The paper do not show for Mr. Stephens Acquiesced in

The

soidening of Witty Sharks; but he must have known that

the sheet Aad originally only 2 pect in width been altered, & de

third

ad

upon engging

as & the Pffect this ermee have

whom the lone & described in the purendent lease, _ If he Right To Uniforms. (& in the New one. And Steamily think he coved establish that his pulling down his

highbor's tale, sono i neuhrary consignencum new lustgiption ofhis lank

a mistake

in the lenses: thinson the fort some not be liable for anyt

which he has bare compullide & pay. If the face.

M

oner of 185

witter in damage

sht

or costs upon that part of the Cace

心漆

But the foot hard isores him & have one aces boundary

-

are worth the proper nor the cones, condemn alms the Surrende And have, brit di Stiftens surrenbund au

Visitam kit

A

his fishin

base which gave him the

25 fut with shit as a founding, that he has

Winich

Ds

från

back a Cas

བས

gives him a different brumlary : & if I understand his complaint her ally, that my dorky's bio artis daten Arending de gelisoma

or laskan

results

de

389 Igrane fest less than his new lane jumprats to grant. If this is The fact he is entitled to compensation, witten by making up the differener from a thier of the 30 fuch Witty Start, or by a money Gregments The Sitit

upon to suggest

& M. Stephens that he might perhaps have in leigin right to more if he wouch to law - But I think we may tell

is mt

the

Calind

fort that under the circes they ohmere give him liberal heatment in nor mearum too clunky The Market value of the band in Extendating the Mong comfervation.

Tell M.

owing & the incomplete inform furnished this Petition.

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.