Page 403
A dispute arose regarding a statement made by Fung, which was contested by another party. The latter claimed that the property in question mostly belonged to Chou Jung-yao, a Chinese subject, and that Fung had mortgaged it in collusion with Chou to defeat the ends of justice. To support this contention, certain entries from the account books of the coal business were produced.
It seemed to me that this question of fact was crucial to the matter and should be investigated before deciding on the Bank's proper remedy. If the property was not Fung's to mortgage initially, the deed relied upon by the Bank would likely provide grounds for proceeding against Fung but would not entitle them to demand possession of the coal.
The Hongkong Government, however, wished to rely on the argument that since the coal was in the legal possession of the Bank at the time of seizure, the Viceroy had no right to seize it without the intervention of a British Court. This argument seemed to be a technical point that I would find difficult to present.
...
Page 403
(The rest of the original text appears to be garbled and not relevant to the coherent text that follows, likely due to OCR errors.)
# RESTRICTED
## MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
...
However, to follow the exact instruction for output format using HTML and to correct and reformat the given text properly, here is the revised response:Page 403
A dispute arose regarding a statement made by Fung, which was contested by another party. The latter claimed that the property in question mostly belonged to Chou Jung-yao, a Chinese subject, and that Fung had mortgaged it in collusion with Chou to defeat the ends of justice. To support this contention, certain entries from the account books of the coal business were produced.
It seemed to me that this question of fact was crucial to the matter and should be investigated before deciding on the Bank's proper remedy. If the property was not Fung's to mortgage initially, the deed relied upon by the Bank would likely provide grounds for proceeding against Fung but would not entitle them to demand possession of the coal.
The Hongkong Government, however, wished to rely on the argument that since the coal was in the legal possession of the Bank at the time of seizure, the Viceroy had no right to seize it without the intervention of a British Court. This argument seemed to be a technical point that I would find difficult to present.
Given the initial text was heavily garbled, the above response focuses on the coherent part of the text that was provided.403
+
çidnsioittes #hak Aonang #enwo
a tiek w od 8000 od raanibuAT BAIE AS
Sumpfen ze voteoly a elin .noga BAKSO
od bedie::I Iuano? mienta ddis leviap
Du flæg en de sjøan nome never al etort
A admin neql entgeng joke od drummevun
jave od tiskum: pwolla na ti gaidd meddwne.
JOIJAJNAJHO on to a pfS
F
to Golakodka #78000 eð 20kulmuy
(Ardete enden etew 10Alle tu sebav-unen bidleuoq
wws? au y gand p? p* La arð gí hefniDATUL
sar una ganehna mingernyeded ye be owinco odt ni
#ton: oslaw tu asigos,qunda" veriðjan TİP Niw
But unluq &,euitto binode? und od
Gewaskah Druped savo enf .noidnajde wath nipora I
Le che va sutidele Jost to noidssup a od pwob
.Leo od te qbdenerwo
«DAP MM 13; berped wm et naiv tested odd asw
contested this statement, said that it was mostly
the property of Chou Jung-yao, & Chinese subject, which
Fung had mortgaged in collusion with Chou to defeat
the enda of justice; and produced in support of his
contention certain entries from ingounded account books
of the coal business. It seemed to me that this
question of fact went to the root of the matter, arxi
that it should be enquired into before taking any de-
cision as to the Bank's proper remedy. If the property
was not Pung'a to mortgage inthe first instance, the
deed on which the Bank relisd would no doubt furnish
grounds for proceeding against Fung, but could not
entitled them to demand possession of the così. The
Hongkong Governant, however, wished to rely on the
argument that the coal being in the legal possession
of the Rank at the time of seizure the Viceroy had no
right to seize it without the intervention of a British
gpallin Court. This seemed to under the circumstances & tech-
A
nical piss which I should find it difficult to present
to
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.