CO129-340 - Governor Nathan Acting Governor May - 1907 [4-6] — Page 302

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

instructed Tompson to forward the views of Counsel who advised that the decision of the Land Court should be appealed against, and that the Government should obtain powers by legislation to appeal to the Supreme Court.

These powers were obtained by Ordinance No. 13 of 1903. In August 1903, leave was granted to the Government to appeal. Hongkong Land Investment and Agency Company Limited, to whom the Ku Fat Shan property had been assigned, then applied to be parties to the appeal, but on 23 Nov 1903, the Supreme Court refused their application; the opposition having "crumbled away".

On 4 January 1904, the Supreme Court allowed the Government's appeal and reversed the decision of the Land Court, finding that the deed of 1883, on which the whole claim rested, was a forgery.

Ku Fat Shan and the Executrixes of Tong Wai Chim have since been appealing to the Hongkong Government for compensation on the grounds (a) that the 1883 deed had been duly registered by the Chinese magistrate of the Sun On District; (b) that petitioners were innocent purchasers for value.

In the present petition to the Secretary of State, they also lay some weight on the allegation that by Lockhart's letter of Feb 1902, the Government by implication promised to grant relief.

As to (a), the Govt has not the evidence of the Chinese magistrate that the deed and the registration deed upon it are not forgeries; the "deed" is also missing. The tax receipt, while showing that taxes were paid on behalf of Yut Ying, does not, according to the Court's view, help the petitioners, for the only evidence connecting Yut Ying with Law Tak Luk (Lam Cheung Fuk's Seed) is the 1883 deed which the Court found to be forged.

Moreover, as regards the receipts for payment of taxes, there is nothing to show that they relate to the fishing rights in question. (2) It has been found that the fishing rights belonged to the Lam Clan of Sun On, and that Yut Ying never had power to sell the fishing rights of the clan.

The Govt has accordingly paid $1,400 to the Lam clan as compensation for all the fishing rights claimed by the clan in Kowloon City Bay.

Edit History

2026-06-04 10:22:14 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
instructed Tompson to forward the views of Counsel who advised that the decision of the Land Court should be appealed against, and that the Government should obtain powers by legislation to appeal to the Supreme Court. These powers were obtained by Ordinance No. 13 of 1903. In August 1903, leave was granted to the Government to appeal. Hongkong Land Investment and Agency Company Limited, to whom the Ku Fat Shan property had been assigned, then applied to be parties to the appeal, but on 23 Nov 1903, the Supreme Court refused their application; the opposition having "crumbled away". On 4 January 1904, the Supreme Court allowed the Government's appeal and reversed the decision of the Land Court, finding that the deed of 1883, on which the whole claim rested, was a forgery. Ku Fat Shan and the Executrixes of Tong Wai Chim have since been appealing to the Hongkong Government for compensation on the grounds (a) that the 1883 deed had been duly registered by the Chinese magistrate of the Sun On District; (b) that petitioners were innocent purchasers for value. In the present petition to the Secretary of State, they also lay some weight on the allegation that by Lockhart's letter of Feb 1902, the Government by implication promised to grant relief. As to (a), the Govt has not the evidence of the Chinese magistrate that the deed and the registration deed upon it are not forgeries; the "deed" is also missing. The tax receipt, while showing that taxes were paid on behalf of Yut Ying, does not, according to the Court's view, help the petitioners, for the only evidence connecting Yut Ying with Law Tak Luk (Lam Cheung Fuk's Seed) is the 1883 deed which the Court found to be forged. Moreover, as regards the receipts for payment of taxes, there is nothing to show that they relate to the fishing rights in question. (2) It has been found that the fishing rights belonged to the Lam Clan of Sun On, and that Yut Ying never had power to sell the fishing rights of the clan. The Govt has accordingly paid $1,400 to the Lam clan as compensation for all the fishing rights claimed by the clan in Kowloon City Bay.
Baseline (Original)
instructed tompnsent the frown He stained Counsel who advised that the decision of the Land Court a that the Goveniment wans wrowt should obtain powers by legislation to appeal to the Suprime (?". These powers were 13 03 oblamed by in August 1903 leave was granted to the Orgre to appeal Hongkong God? Tong Wan Chun to whom the aku Fan Shan property had the appeal, besu assigned then applied to be аббеб ao but on parties to 23 Nov 1903 the Suprime Court refused their application; the opposition When the appeal "crumble5 away 4 Janou the the Supreme Court allowed appeal onarsed the decision of the Land Court-finding that the Dee 5 7 1883, on which the whole claim ristes, was a forgery. Ku Far Shan & the Executrixes of Tong Wai Chime have since been appealing to the Hongkong God for compensation on The grounds (a) para so report 15-875/05 that the 1883 desd had been duly registered by the Chinese magistrate of the Sun On District (b) that petitioners won innocent purchasers for value, приши For ообщайся 5803/0 Lake! in the of Yut! is just the New of EA A 298 In the present petition to the Soys, they also lay (8) Some wright on the allegation that by In Lockhart letter of Feb 1902 the Government by implication promised to grant intle as to (a) the Govt has the Evidence the Chinese magistrate that the Beed the registration deal upon it are forgeries; the "Seed and also is missing The tax receiple, white showing that taxes Arhalf of Yut Ying, do W райб даж not according to the Roo! view help the petitioners, for the only evidence connecting Yut Ying with { Law Tak Luk a (Lam Cheung Fucks Seed which the Court من the 1883 - (+) M found tobe forged. monours As on toad the receipts for froking taxes other is nothing show that they question for the and a72 (2) it has been found that the fishing rights belonged to who say the QUEque the are a nally Zam Clan of Sun On that Yut Ying that the claimanto power to vell never existes never had the the fishing rights of a the clan. (The Goo has accordingly pais $1,400 to the Lam clan compensation for all the froking rights claimed by the clan in Kowloon City Bay
2026-06-04 10:22:14 · Baseline
View content

instructed tompnsent the frown He stained Counsel who advised that the decision of the Land Court

a that the Goveniment

wans

wrowt

should obtain powers by legislation to appeal to the Suprime (?".

These powers were

13

03

oblamed by

in August 1903 leave

was granted to the

Orgre to appeal Hongkong God?

Tong Wan Chun to whom the

aku Fan Shan

property had

the appeal,

besu assigned then applied to be

аббеб

ao

but

on

parties to

23 Nov 1903 the Suprime

Court refused their application;

the opposition

When

the appeal

"crumble5

away

4 Janou

the

the Supreme Court allowed

appeal onarsed the decision of

the Land Court-finding that the

Dee 5

7

1883, on which the whole claim

ristes, was

a

forgery.

Ku Far Shan & the Executrixes

of Tong Wai Chime have since been appealing to the Hongkong God for

compensation

on

The grounds (a)

para so report

15-875/05

that the 1883 desd had been duly registered

by the Chinese magistrate of the Sun On District (b) that petitioners won innocent

purchasers for value,

приши

For

ообщайся

5803/0

Lake!

in the of Yut!

is just

the New

of

EA

A

298

In the present petition to the Soys,

they also lay

(8)

Some

wright

on

the

allegation that by

In Lockhart

letter of Feb 1902 the Government by implication promised to grant

intle

as

to (a) the Govt has the Evidence the Chinese magistrate that the Beed the registration deal upon it

are

forgeries; the "Seed and also is missing

The tax receiple, white showing that taxes

Arhalf of Yut Ying, do

W

райб

даж

not

according to the Roo! view help the

petitioners, for the only evidence

connecting Yut Ying with { Law Tak Luk a (Lam Cheung Fucks Seed which the Court

من

the 1883

-

(+)

M

found tobe forged. monours As on toad the receipts

for froking taxes other is nothing

show that they

question

for the and

a72

(2) it has been found that

the fishing rights belonged to

who

say

the

QUEque

the

are a

nally

Zam Clan of Sun On

that Yut Ying

that the claimanto

power

to vell

never existes never had

the

the fishing rights of

a

the clan. (The Goo has accordingly pais $1,400 to the Lam clan compensation for all the froking rights claimed by the clan in

Kowloon City Bay

Comments

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

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.