It appears that the views of petitioners have any remedy is against the vendors who corrupted their title.
The petitioners claimed over $400,000, but were awarded $25,000 for what they had lost. I saw Mr. J. Hastings about this today. He elaborated the pleas just frowned upon in the Petition at consideration, but really added nothing new except this - when I put it to him that the legal remedies of the petitioners had not been exhausted, he said that the Petitioners applied for leave to appeal to the P.C. from the decision of the Full Court on their motion to be added as parties to the appeal, but that leave was refused on the ground that that decision was only on an interlocutory order.
[This does not affect the question in the Petition but it is relevant to Crown Solicitor's observations on pages 24 & 25 thereof.] I then suggested that "Ham Tak Huts" might have been put up to appeal to the P.C., or that the Petitioners might have applied to the Privy Council for special leave to appeal. He said that they had taken counsel's opinion and acting thereon had refrained from taking any such steps. I said that that was a matter between them and their legal advisers, but that unless the Secretary was satisfied that they had exhausted their legal remedies it was difficult to see how he could act on the petition.
I then inquired about the further legal remedies which appeared to be open to them - viz an action against their Vendors (Tin Pat Thine) for the covenant of title. I was not surprised to hear that it was not considered worth pursuing (with "thin chances"!). Mr. Hastings also laid stress on the fact that the Secretary had recently ordered compensation to be paid in exactly similar circumstances.
I replied that my recollection was that no compensation was paid to Ito Hap Puis, but a comparatively small sum was allowed him for certain out-of-pocket expenses connected with the case. There seemed to be some misunderstanding; the fact is that this was not a parallel case to the present, as it was not a case of concerted speculation - the Petitioners were in the position of having "jumped before they looked" something of a parenthetical injunction which the vendors had not certainly got to sell - Caveat Emptor.
The losses of Crown-land on resumption is $52,640. I agree. The claim for compensation is a mere technical one & has no moral grounds whatever to support it.
Page 299
is that
ves to (b) the host views of petitioners have any remedy it is against the vendors who corruante s
that their titte
good that why Gost should mpensate land speculators who
then
فة
was
no
ras
did not take proper precautions
The petitioners claimed
disat
over
$400,000
$ 25,000!
for what they had
gwin $25,
? Decline
his frites 17.7
Two Cox
hie Lercas.
A./ 34 24/6
I saw Mr. J. Hastings about this today. It
-
Elaborated the pleas just frowned in the Pofitin
at considerath bency, the He really added.
nothing new except this - when I put it to hear that the bagel remedies of the partitioners head not ben axhendid, he said that the Partitioners apples for leave to appeal to the PC. from the Isecsin of the Full Count on their motion to to added pastus to the appeal, but that koor refused on the ground that that baccision
was only on
intasticating order.
*
Ware
[This does not affees to to vention in the Pitition
ves the
but if is attended los Crown Sotão obsääs
on pares 240 25 thereof. I
I then sucgepolid that ham. Tak huts" might have been put up to appeal to the PC.,
or that the Partitioners thans shows uaight havs affitied to the Presory Commit for special han
to affect. He said that they had taken. comusit's opinion and acting theron had refrained from takins; any such steps. I said that that was a
q
Cocros
matter
}
299
between than others clicals, but that unkers the Suff was satisfied that they had ex hamslid this begat
remedies it was
diffrent to see how he could
actions
on the petition.
bake awning d'inquired about the further beget reminds which appeared to to open to them - viz an nation against their Vendors (Tin Pat thine }
the cormant of tille
Gang Bang!
འ
and was not surprised to hear that there not considered worth powder shot (with
thran codes") !
her. Hastings also laid streso
M
the case
f
au
krowt
Ho hap
Pues to whom he said, the Sofs had recently
of ordered compensation to the paid in exactly similes circumstances
I replied that may recollection
was that no compensation
WA
paid to Ito hap Purs
but a comparatively small Sum
was allowed hom
for certain out of frocket Expenses connected with the clau
alisus
Chak
twine,
to some misunderstanding; which had
- which had
The fact is that this was
wo
parallel is the present
concerted speculation -
'ish at the Sort Exprenas and the Partitioners ane withe position of having, jumped before they
Chun
to the frace they longht something
of parenthe inje
which the vendors had not certainly got to
Sell Care Emptor.
Joc de
* who was a C# ca
The Luces
of Crown-bion on frames is
$52,64
Jagree. The claim for compensation
is a mere techwil one
&
Moral grounds whatever to support it.
to C.Pd. 17
atorié
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.