231
July it was very definitely suggested that the amount of
$3,500 was paid to the vendor after that letter was written
and it was on that letter that the claim to compensation
was mainly based.
3.
It being now clearly established
that all the payments to the vendor were made before the
date of that letter the claim is made to rest entirely on
the decision of the Land Court delivered on the 7th. Decem-
-ber, 1901, and much is made of the so called ex post facto
legislation of the 10th. August, 1903, under the provisions
of which, according to Messrs. Ewens and Harston's letter
to you of the 20th. December, 1904, "the Hongkong Govern-
-ment subsequently acquired the property", and by which it
is stated in Mr. Harston's latest communication to you his
clients were deprived of the means of enforcing rights
previously acquired.
4.
The Ordinance of 1903 did not in
itself upset the Judgment of the Land Court and was not ex
post facto legislation in the sense of depriving owners
of rights they had acquired under earlier legislation. It
only provided for further investigation where titles had
not been issued. It was the Supreme Court of the Colony in
its Appellate Jurisdiction that found in January, 1904,
that
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.