CO129-324 - Governor Nathan - 1904 [10-12] — Page 390

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

COFY.

Enclosure 2.

C.O.

389

42641

Mece

Jent et male? *treprave? Infected act

VTR

また

entwalo nci ywy cz

!

istricte virował dallir ett to

« Joe Flore did of ve cated

aona wdd mi?!)#

. VS #

Hon. Colonial Secretary,

17 DEC 041

I am of the following opinion with regard to

the three views set forth in the case stated by his Excellency :-

(1).

That in 1901 the Admiralty, on acquiring the

Nullah North of Queen's Road, took it subject to the conditions

then existing, and were bound when they diverted and reconstructed

it to provide for the passage of all débris &c., which could at

that time reasonably be expected to come down the Nullah. I accordingly consider that the Admiralty are not entitled to contribution from any upper riparian owner or other person in respect of débris &c., carried down from his land in the natural order of things, and apart from any act or neglect on his part. Only in case of a block or damage being directly caused by such act or neglect would the Admiralty be entitled to recover.

(2).

That the Military Authorities assert too

large a right in contending that the Admiralty must "allow water

to flow down to the sea with all its contents", if in the word

"contents" they mean to include, as it would appear they do,

débris which has got into the Nullah by reason of their own act

or neglect, e.g. the débris from the wall in the Murray Barracks

which collapsed in June 1903.

(3).

That the view of the Colonial Government

therefore is correct, subject to this further observation, that if

when the Admiralty diverted the Nullah (changing a practically

straight into a winding course), and lengthened it (thereby

presumably decreasing its fall), and covered it in, the new

outlet was inadequate for the purposes indicated in paragraph (1)

of this opinion; and if such inadequacy should occasion a block;

then I think the Admiralty would not be entitled to contribution

from other landowners, even though the obstructing material might

be found, wholly or partly, to be such as would not have been carried

Page 390

Page 391

Edit History

2026-06-01 21:55:23 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
COFY. Enclosure 2. C.O. 389 42641 Mece Jent et male? *treprave? Infected act VTR また entwalo nci ywy cz ! istricte virował dallir ett to « Joe Flore did of ve cated aona wdd mi?!)# . VS # Hon. Colonial Secretary, 17 DEC 041 I am of the following opinion with regard to the three views set forth in the case stated by his Excellency :- (1). That in 1901 the Admiralty, on acquiring the Nullah North of Queen's Road, took it subject to the conditions then existing, and were bound when they diverted and reconstructed it to provide for the passage of all débris &c., which could at that time reasonably be expected to come down the Nullah. I accordingly consider that the Admiralty are not entitled to contribution from any upper riparian owner or other person in respect of débris &c., carried down from his land in the natural order of things, and apart from any act or neglect on his part. Only in case of a block or damage being directly caused by such act or neglect would the Admiralty be entitled to recover. (2). That the Military Authorities assert too large a right in contending that the Admiralty must "allow water to flow down to the sea with all its contents", if in the word "contents" they mean to include, as it would appear they do, débris which has got into the Nullah by reason of their own act or neglect, e.g. the débris from the wall in the Murray Barracks which collapsed in June 1903. (3). That the view of the Colonial Government therefore is correct, subject to this further observation, that if when the Admiralty diverted the Nullah (changing a practically straight into a winding course), and lengthened it (thereby presumably decreasing its fall), and covered it in, the new outlet was inadequate for the purposes indicated in paragraph (1) of this opinion; and if such inadequacy should occasion a block; then I think the Admiralty would not be entitled to contribution from other landowners, even though the obstructing material might be found, wholly or partly, to be such as would not have been carried Page 390 Page 391
Baseline (Original)
༄༄།་ས་།། ཏད་༄།། ་"་ - " ་-ནོ་༔་༔ 826 COFY. Enclosure 2. C.0 389 42641 Mece Jent et male ?*treprave? Infected act VTR また entwalo nci ywy cz ! istricte virował dallir ett to « Joe Flore did of ve cated aona wdd mi?!)# . VS # Hon. Colonial Secretary, 17 DEC 041 I am of the following opinion with regard to the three views set forth in the case stated by his Excellency :- (1). That in 1901 the Admiralty, on acquiring the Nullah North of Queen's Road, took it subject to the conditions then existing, and were bound when they diverted and reconstructed it to provide for the passage of all déoris &c., which could at that time reasonably be expected to come down the Nulish. I accor- dingly consider that the Admiralty are not entitled to contribu- tion from any upper riparian owner or other person in respect of débris c., carried down from his land in the natural order of things, and apart from any act or neglect on his part. Unly in case of a block or damage being directly caused by such act or neglect would the Admiralty be entitled to recover. (2). That the Military Authorities assert too large a right in contending that the Admiralty must "allow water to flow down to the sea with all its contents", if in the word "contents" they mean to include, as it would appear they do, débris which has got into the Nulish by reason of their own act or neglect, e.g. the débris from the wail in the kurray Barracks which collapsed in June 1903. (3). That the view of the Colonial Government therefore is correct, subject to this further observation, that if when the Admiralty diverted the Nullah (changing a practically straight into a winding course), and lengthened it (thereby presumably decreasing its fall), and covered it in, the new outlet was inadequate for the purposes indicated in paragraph (1) of this opinion; and if such inadequacy should occasion a block; then I think the Admiralty would not be entitled to contribution from other landowners, even though the obstructing material might be found, wholly or partly, to be such as would not have been car- -ried Page 390Page 391
2026-06-01 21:55:23 · Baseline
View content

༄༄།་ས་།། ཏད་༄།། ་"་ - " ་-ནོ་༔་༔

826

COFY.

Enclosure 2.

C.0

389

42641

Mece

Jent et male ?*treprave? Infected act

VTR

また

entwalo nci ywy cz

!

istricte virował dallir ett to

« Joe Flore did of ve cated

aona wdd mi?!)#

. VS #

Hon. Colonial Secretary,

17 DEC 041

I am of the following opinion with regard to

the three views set forth in the case stated by his Excellency :-

(1).

That in 1901 the Admiralty, on acquiring the

Nullah North of Queen's Road, took it subject to the conditions

then existing, and were bound when they diverted and reconstructed

it to provide for the passage of all déoris &c., which could at

that time reasonably be expected to come down the Nulish. I accor-

dingly consider that the Admiralty are not entitled to contribu-

tion from any upper riparian owner or other person in respect of

débris c., carried down from his land in the natural order of

things, and apart from any act or neglect on his part. Unly in

case of a block or damage being directly caused by such act or

neglect would the Admiralty be entitled to recover.

(2).

That the Military Authorities assert too

large a right in contending that the Admiralty must "allow water

to flow down to the sea with all its contents", if in the word

"contents" they mean to include, as it would appear they do,

débris which has got into the Nulish by reason of their own act

or neglect, e.g. the débris from the wail in the kurray Barracks

which collapsed in June 1903.

(3).

That the view of the Colonial Government

therefore is correct, subject to this further observation, that if

when the Admiralty diverted the Nullah (changing a practically

straight into a winding course), and lengthened it (thereby

presumably decreasing its fall), and covered it in, the new

outlet was inadequate for the purposes indicated in paragraph (1)

of this opinion; and if such inadequacy should occasion a block;

then I think the Admiralty would not be entitled to contribution

from other landowners, even though the obstructing material might

be found, wholly or partly, to be such as would not have been car-

-ried

Page 390Page 391

Comments

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

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.