CO129-327 - Individuals - 1904 — Page 104

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

Series Prev Next

101

"should be allowed to go to appeal: such leave

"may be granted whether the Crown was or was

"not represented before the said Land Court on

"the Hearing of such Claim: pending such Appeal

"the Chief Justice may stay all proceedings

"arising directly or indirectly out of any

"decision on any such Claim so appealed from."

Immediately after the passing of the above last mentioned Ordinance proceedings by way of Appeal from the decision of the Land Court were instituted by the Hong Kong Government which obtained leave to prosecute the Appeal which latter came on for Hearing before the Full Court on the 4th January 1904.

The Respondent to the Appeal, Ho Lap Pun, was present in person stating that he could not afford to pay any advocate to appear for him.

Our clients the Purchasers were not parties to the Appeal, the Full Court having decided in a previous case that Purchasers from Land Court Claimants had no status before the Court and could not be added as parties to Appeal proceedings.

It was suggested during the Hearing of the Appeal that one of the documents produced before the Land Court was

-17-1

Edit History

2026-06-02 08:34:59 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

101 "should be allowed to go to appeal: such leave "may be granted whether the Crown was or was "not represented before the said Land Court on "the Hearing of such Claim: pending such Appeal "the Chief Justice may stay all proceedings "arising directly or indirectly out of any "decision on any such Claim so appealed from." Immediately after the passing of the above last mentioned Ordinance proceedings by way of Appeal from the decision of the Land Court were instituted by the Hong Kong Government which obtained leave to prosecute the Appeal which latter came on for Hearing before the Full Court on the 4th January 1904. The Respondent to the Appeal, Ho Lap Pun, was present in person stating that he could not afford to pay any advocate to appear for him. Our clients the Purchasers were not parties to the Appeal, the Full Court having decided in a previous case that Purchasers from Land Court Claimants had no status before the Court and could not be added as parties to Appeal proceedings. It was suggested during the Hearing of the Appeal that one of the documents produced before the Land Court was -17-1

Baseline (Original)

: 101 "should be allowed to go to appeal: such leave "may be granted whether the Crown was or was "not represented before the said Land Court on "the Hearing of such Claim: pending such Appeal "the Chief Justice may stay all proceedings "arising directly or indirectly out of any "decision on any such Olaim so appealed from." Immediately after the passing of the above last men- tioned Ordinance proceedings by way of Appeal from the deci- sion of the Land Court were instituted by the Hong Kong Government which obtained leave to prosecute the Appeal J which latter came on for Hearing before the Full Court on the 4th. January 1904. The Respondent to the Appeal, Ho Lap Pun, was pre- sent in person stating that he could not afford to pay any advocate to appear for him. Our clients the Purchasers were not parties to the Appeal, the Full Court having decided in a previous case that Purchasers from Land Court Claimants had no status before the Court and could not be added as parties to Appeal proceedings. It was suggested during the Hearing of the Appeal that one of the documents produced before the Land Court was -17-1

2026-06-02 08:34:59 · Baseline

View content

101

"should be allowed to go to appeal: such leave

"may be granted whether the Crown was or was

"not represented before the said Land Court on

"the Hearing of such Claim: pending such Appeal

"the Chief Justice may stay all proceedings

"arising directly or indirectly out of any

"decision on any such Olaim so appealed from."

Immediately after the passing of the above last men-

tioned Ordinance proceedings by way of Appeal from the deci-

sion of the Land Court were instituted by the Hong Kong

Government which obtained leave to prosecute the Appeal

which latter came on for Hearing before the Full Court on the

4th. January 1904.

The Respondent to the Appeal, Ho Lap Pun, was pre-

sent in person stating that he could not afford to pay any

advocate to appear for him.

Our clients the Purchasers were not parties to the

Appeal, the Full Court having decided in a previous case that

Purchasers from Land Court Claimants had no status before the

Court and could not be added as parties to Appeal proceedings.

It was suggested during the Hearing of the Appeal

that one of the documents produced before the Land Court was

-17-1

Comments

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

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.