The Plaintiff was put in possession of certain "Land marked" by a Bailiff, Danby on 9th day of October (52) Thomas Hobarth Bean Bailiff of Supreme Court.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONGKONG.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
Suit No. 69 1884
(Butler, thung toss. & Stephens.)
ORDER FOR Registrar's report to be confirmed and Deftlo be put in possession of Land.
Filed 9/9/85 (17) @Fact S 10
Sir,
Copy Correspondence referred to in Paragraph 25.- 24th February 1887.
In the Matter of Marine Lot No. 184 granted to me by Sir George Bowen by Lease dated 13th September 1884-
I believe you are aware that the Supreme Court of Hong Kong in the suit brought against me by the adjoining Owner on the East side of the Lot, refused me leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Her Privy Council; in consequence of which I took the necessary proceedings to obtain such leave from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London.
This application has been refused on the ground that their Lordships being "of Opinion that the Godowns having been completed, the value of the land in question could not be sufficient to justify an appeal."
I have now, therefore, no alternative but to bring the matter before His Excellency the Administrator of this Colony again, that right may be done. And in pursuance of former correspondence, I have to ask that I may be put in possession of the land in dispute, which is comprised in my lease but which was given to the Plaintiffs by the Bailiff of the Supreme Court of Hong Kong not in accordance with the Judgment of the Supreme Court, but in accordance with the Plaintiff's Surveyor's idea of what that Judgment was.
I will, I think, be admitted without argument that the Judgment of the Supreme Court never intended to give Plaintiffs 2 feet 2 inches more ground than their Lease measurement, but this is precisely what has happened by the Bailiff being allowed to give possession of land which was not measured, and never was in the possession of the Plaintiffs.
The Decree of the Supreme Court is as clear as words can make it, and is as follows:-
"This Court doth Order, and decree that the Boundary line, as laid down by Mr. Danby in 1877, and subsequently confirmed by him in 1880, be held to be the boundary between Marine Lots No. 184 and 185."
Whereas the boundary line now laid down is one set out by Mr. Danby in a Plan made in 1884 for the purpose of this trial, and differs to the extent...
The Porintiff was put possession of certain "Land marked.
by
a
Danby on 9th day of
hur October
(52) Thomas Hobarth Bean Bailiff of Supreme Const.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
HONGKONG.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
Surt No.
69
1884
(butik thung toss.
& Stephens.
ORDER FOR Registrar's report to be confiruled and Defflo be put in possession of Land.
Filed
9/9/85 (17) @Fact S
10
Sir
Copy Correspondruce referred to in Paragraph 25.-
ong động February 34 1887.
In the Matter of Marine Lot No. 184
granted to me by Sir George Bowen by Lease dated 13 th September 1884-
321
of believe you are aware that the Supreme Court of Hong Kong in the suit brought against me by the adjoining Owner on the East side of the Lot, refused me thave to appeal to Her Majesty in Her Brivy Council; in consequence of which I took the necessary proceedings to obtain such leave from the sludicial Committee of the Relay, Council in London..._.
This application has been refused on the ground that their Lordships being "of Opinion that the Godowns having been completed, the value of the land in "question could not be sufficient to justify an appeal "
I have now, therefore, no alternative but to bring the matter before His Excellency the Administrator of this Colony again, that right may be done... And in pursuance of former correspondence I have to ask that I may. be put in possession of the land in dispate, which is comprised in my lease but which was
is I given to the Plaintiffs by the Bailiff of the Suprome Court of Hong Kong hot in accordance with the Judgment of the Supreme..
we Court, but in accordance with the Plaintiff's Surveyor's idea of what that Judgment was..
A will I think be admitted without argument that the budgment of the. Supreme Court never intended to give Plaintiffs 2 feet 2 inches more ground than their Lease measurement, but this is precisely what has happened by the Bailiff being allowed to give possession of land which was not measured, and never was in the possession of the Plaintiffs -
The Decree of the Supreme Court is as clear, as words can make it, and is_ as follows :-
"This Court doth Order, and decree that the Boundary line, as laid down by Mr. Danly in 1877, and subsequently confirmed by him in 1880, be held to be the boundary between Marine Lots & Nov 184 and 185,"
Whereas the boundary line now laid down is one set out by Mr. Danby in a Plan made in 1884 for the purpose of this trial, and differs to the extent
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.