C
COPY.
1.
ENCLOSURE 4.
0.0.
21760
131
Minute by Mr. Goodman (Attorney-General) on the
(so called) Shell Case.
As I was Acting Chief Justice of Hongkong from 3th. April, 1399, to 8th. February, 1900, I had nothing to do with the granting of the Lease of the Submarine Area known as Lantao Marine Lot No. 2 for the purpose of taking Coral and Shells.
3.
The Lease, which was for 5 years from 7th. October, 1999, at an annual rent of $300, was dated 20th. December, 1999, and was granted ap- parently at the suggestion of Mr. Bruce Shepherd, the Deputy Land Officer. who is an Officer of considerable experience. It does not appear that either the Acting Attorney-General or the Crown Solicitor was consulted in the matter.
3.
No doubt, it originated in the natural desire to obtain at least some small revenue from the New Territories, the expense of poli- cing and opening out which falls upon the Hongkong Government, while the revenua derived is extremely small and must continue to be so until the Land Court has got to work and decided upon the claims to, and in respect of land in those territories.
4.
No doubt Leases of this kind are unusual, but as the ordinary rights of navigation and fishing are reserved in favour of the public, and as, in my opinion, there cannot be according to English Law a valid legal custom for Chinese fishermen to take profits a prendre, such as Coral and dead Shells, from the bed of the 'Sea which, in the 'locus in quo' is vested in the Crown, I am not prepared to say the Lease by the Crown is not valid.
5.
The Lessees having commenced obtaining Coral and Shells for their line burning business in the leased premises, found that certain persons, of whom the Defendant was one, trespassed on their preserves and dredged up and appropriated these products and declined to pay any royalty. Thereupon, in January, 1900, the Lessees took proceedings in the Police Court and as, I presume, the Magistrate held things embedded in and attached to the soil were not the subjects of larceny in the absence of statutory enactament making them so, the Lessees failed in those proceedings.
3.
Thereupon, acting upon the advice of their Solicitors the Lessees commenced an action of trespass and conversion claiming $100 damages, &c.
7.
The amount being under. $1,000 the Plaintiffs proceeded under the Summary Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (Ordinance 14 of 1973) and the Writ was issued on 17th. February, 1900. As, however, the Judge desired, in this case, written pleadings, the Petition was filed on 28th. February. I find the answer was not filed till 18th. March, 1900. In the ordinary course of things the Paisne Judge would have decided the Case, but in this instance (I suppose by consent) the Chief Justice appears to have directed the Suit to be heard before the Full Court instead. He would have power to do so under Section 17 of Ordinance 12 of 1973.
3.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.