313
Ar
4. On the 20th day of November 1884 Chun Yik Bhung, to Kiwok Bui, Kwan Que Ayee and Yee King claiming to be owners of Marine Lot N. 185, hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiffs issued their Writ of Summons out of the Supreme Court of Hongkong in its Original Jurisdiction against your Petitioner as owner of Marine Lot N° 184, whereby they claimed to restrain your Petitioner by Injunction from pulling down damaging certain buildings standing upon Marine Lot N. 185. in Hongkong belonging to them and by the Petition filed in the said suit on the 3rd December 1884 the Plaintiffs claimed to be owners of certain Godowns built partly on Marine Lot N°185 and partly on Inland Lot N°38 and alleged that there were windows in the said Godowns looking out on a narrow strip of land the property of Plaintiffs as part of the said Lots lying between the West Wall of the said Godowns and your Petitioner's ground and further alleged that your Petitioner claimed the said Strip of land and threatened to enter thereon and build up a wall thereupon close to the wall of the Plaintiffs' Godowns so as to deprive the Plaintiffs of light and air.
10. Your Petitioner by his answer to the said Petition filed on the 17th December 1884 denied the Plaintiffs' allegations and stated that the Plaintiff Chun Yik Bhung gave a written authority to your Petitioner's contractor to pull down the whole of the Wall referred to in the Plaintiffs' Petition and to charge him the said Chun Yik Bhung with the expenses thereof and that it was in pursuance of such authority and not of any order from your Petitioner that the wall in question was taken down and your Petitioner further stated that there was no strip of land between the Plaintiffs' Godowns and your Petitioner's land.
The suit was heard before Sir George Phillippo Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Hongkong on the 10th 11th 13th and 14th February 1885 and Judgment was pronounced on the 6th March following whereby the Court did order and decree that the boundary line as laid down by Mr. Canby (a Witness for the Plaintiffs) in 1844, and subsequently confirmed by him in 1880, should be held to be the boundary between Marine Lots No 184 and 185 that your Petitioner was not justified in pulling down the Plaintiffs' Wall and that your Petitioner should pay to the Plaintiffs the sum of $500 damages for so pulling down the Plaintiffs' Wall; that the application for restraining your Petitioner from further trespassing over the boundary line as laid down by Canby in 1844 and 1880 should be allowed and your Petitioner was thereby restrained and that the Plaintiffs in rebuilding their Wall already pulled down would not be justified in extending it beyond the limits of the boundary line as there recognised.
12. Your Petitioner in due course served notice of motion under the Hongkong Rules of ...
(3.)
313
Ar
4. On the 20th day of November 18841 bhun yik bhung, to kiwok bui, kwan que Ayee
and Yee King clauxing to be oververs of Marine Lot N. 185. hereinafter referred to as the Maintiff's issued their Writ of Summons out of the Supreme Court of Houghoag in its Original Jurisdiction against your Petitioner as Cuner of Marine DA N 184. whereby they claimed to restrain your Petitioner by Injunction from fulling down damaging certain buildings standing upon Marine Lot P. 185. in Hongkong belonging to them and by theh Petition filled in the said suit on the 350 Cucumber 1884 the Plaintiffs daimed to the lovers of certain Godowns built partly on Marine Lot N185. and partly on Inland Lot N°38 and alleged that there were windows in the said Godowns looking out on a narrow ship of land the property of Plaintiffs as part of the said Lots lying between the West Wall of the said Godowns and your Petitioners ground and further alleged that s
" your Petitioner claimed the said Strip of land and threatened to enter thereon and build up a wall thereupon close to the wall of the Maintiffs. Godowns s
• so as to deprive the Plaintiffs of light and air. 10. Your Intitioner by his answer to the said Petition filed on the 17th December 1884 .... derlied the Maintiffs allegations and stated that the Plaintiff Whun yik bhung gave a written authority to sour Petitioners bontractor to quell down the whole of the Wall referred to in the Raintiffs Petition and to charge him the said Chun Ych khung with the expenses thereof and that it was in putronance of such authority and not of any order from your Petitioner that the wall in question was taken down and your Ititioner further stated that there was no - stripe of laved between the Plaintiffs Godowns and your Betitioner's land.
M
The suit was heard before Sir George Phillippo Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of hongkong on the 10th 11th 13th and 14th February 1885 and Judgment was pronounced on the 6 March following whereby the fourt did order and decree that the boundary line as laid down by Mr. Canby (a Witness for the Plaintiffs) in 1844, and subsequently confirmed by him in 1880. should be held to be the boundary between Marine Let's No 1844 and 185 that your Petitioner was not justified in fuelling down the Maintiffs Wall and that t your Ititioner should pay to the Raintiffs the sum of $500. damages for so pulling down the Plaintiff Wall; that the application for restraining your Petitioned from further trespassing over the boundary live as laid down the Carly in 1844 and 1880 should be allowed and
Petitioner was s thereby restrained and that the Maintiffs in rebuilding their Wall already fulled dowver would not be justified in exterding it beyond the limits of the boundary line as there recognised.
your
to
12. Your Petitioner in due lure served notice of motion under the Hongkong bode of
(3.)
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.