327
aluto ne gnoT to noltije¶ edź no rogs a'rottollo8 mvorn
.TORI,NOTEM .NJSI botah nad? Ist u bna eexirjusexk
à ba & $.I adqergansq ni etnorejete adm
.A od I .8789
srit Jqeoxe) JoeToo WlIelinstedre ed of Isoqqa nol÷lts and to
Now gauern met bra đưI det med dadd S dqstratsq mi dnem data
.(bas to soetq biss end to arenwo fantziro ar: stow
Jname tata edit ‚8 Aqɛrreteq of brømet fàlt
L*15* 2*
e2.0 to SETA 16 Oz bolttime ejusmials erit banot Juod erit dørs
Jnembuj, erit of sonereter a as doennoo vietuloads ton al setos
misio end of aeros 02.04 bowoffs vister: Job erit tant wode IIIw
had two basil at tært et moltoniteth er
.atng-
JI .etnermbul att yd ytneqong to etɗate vs retnoo of rewog on
art of sonswolis dove droger bon eriala wolls vino biroo
..TONTOVO
ad of TAGqqe II bus Or
t
#
.II of a .612?"
a'al bne notestrdva a el 8 dgergenet .JOSTTOO Vilalinated a
fremmta to radjen a oals at SI Ngerrars¶ „dasturgis to nettar
‚ð aðqernaIBI
ad od røðuga di riqernsraq ni atnemednja srit
.Jo97700
.bi .872"
ted yd beatvba stew atenoiditeq sɗ) TI
vedd fnist I,Nqstye7sq eidt ni betsja tennem ent ni arottoifo?
of as sabi on barf verið smit dari da,ne,beeivba yibsď yrev stOW #noшnievod at yd bednary ed blow (yna ?I) Isis to bald Jadw
.misio ond ni babufont brusl end to Joequot ni
ot beeb erit mort anseqqs Jnerumiaas ent .al bra I AIBI
.bajaja Tennism eft ni bateigmoo need svad
nend bar bnsi erit of eItid to mot on aA
.TI
'atnsmisio end to arenoltissq eft yď ezaroruq odd
.818
baldtee
Erit
rights was a purely speculative purchase.
Para. 18.
Para. 19.
Para. 20.
This appears to be correct.
Paragraph 19 is a matter of argument.
Messrs. Leigh and Orange's valuation was based on the assumption, for which there was no justification at that time, that the Government would grant Crown Leases of the area included in the claim similar to those granted for Kaploon Marine Lots. The Government obtained evidence from experts which showed that this valuation, even on the assumption stated, was most extravagant. As the question of value, however, was never argued this evidence was not produced.
Para. 21 to 23.
-rect.
Para. 24 and 25.
Paragraphs 21,22 and 23 appear to be correct.
The question whether the claimants or the petitioners were the proper parties to make respondents in the appeal was settled by the judgment of the Full Court, which is cited in paragraph 25, after the matter had been fully argued by the Petitioners' Counsel.
The petitioners applied for leave to appeal to the Privy Council, but their petition was dismissed by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Hongkong on the 14th December, 1903. If the petitioners had desired to contest the legality of these decisions of the Full Court they should have applied to His Majesty in Council for special leave to appeal; they did not do so.
Para. 26.
The claimants Lam Tak Luk and Lam Cheung Fuk covenanted with the purchasers from them that their title was good and that they would do everything necessary to complete it. These purchasers also covenanted with the petitioners to the same effect, therefore, by virtue of these covenants the petitioners might reasonably call upon the claimants to contest the appeal and the petitioners would have been justified in supplying the claimants with funds for such contest; a step which
327
aluto ne gnoT to noltije¶ edź no rogs a'rottollo8 mvorn
.TORI,NOTEM .NJSI botah nad? Ist u bna eexirjusexk
à ba & $.I adqergansq ni etnorejete adm
.A od I .8789
srit Jqeoxe) JoeToo WlIelinstedre ed of Isoqqa nol÷lts and to
Now gauern met bra đưI det med dadd S dqstratsq mi dnem data
.(bas to soetq biss end to arenwo fantziro ar: stow
Jname tata edit ‚8 Aqɛrreteq of brømet fàlt
L*15* 2*
e2.0 to SETA 16 Oz bolttime ejusmials erit banot Juod erit dørs
Jnembuj, erit of sonereter a as doennoo vietuloads ton al setos
misio end of aeros 02.04 bowoffs vister: Job erit tant wode IIIw
had two basil at tært et moltoniteth er
.atng-
JI .etnermbul att yd ytneqong to etɗate vs retnoo of rewog on
art of sonswolis dove droger bon eriala wolls vino biroo
..TONTOVO
ad of TAGqqe II bus Or
t
#
.II of a .612?"
a'al bne notestrdva a el 8 dgergenet .JOSTTOO Vilalinated a
fremmta to radjen a oals at SI Ngerrars¶ „dasturgis to nettar
‚ð aðqernaIBI
ad od røðuga di riqernsraq ni atnemednja srit
.Jo97700
.bi .872"
ted yd beatvba stew atenoiditeq sɗ) TI
vedd fnist I,Nqstye7sq eidt ni betsja tennem ent ni arottoifo?
of as sabi on barf verið smit dari da,ne,beeivba yibsď yrev stOW #noшnievod at yd bednary ed blow (yna ?I) Isis to bald Jadw
.misio ond ni babufont brusl end to Joequot ni
ot beeb erit mort anseqqs Jnerumiaas ent .al bra I AIBI
.bajaja Tennism eft ni bateigmoo need svad
nend bar bnsi erit of eItid to mot on aA
.TI
'atnsmisio end to arenoltissq eft yď ezaroruq odd
.818
baldtee
Erit
rights was a purely speculative purchase.
Para. 18.
Para. 19.
Para. 20.
This appears to be correct.
Paragraph 19 is a matter of argument.
Messrs. Leigh and Orange's valuation was
based on the assumption, for which there was no justification
at that time, that the Government would grant Crown Leases of
the area included in the claim similar to those granted for
Kaploon Marine Lots. The Government obtained evidence from experts which showed that this valuation, even on the assumption stated, was most extravagant. As the question of value, however,
was never argued this evidence was not produced.
Para. 21 to 23.
-rect.
Para. 24 and 25.
Paragraphs 21,22 and 23 appear to be cor-
The question whether the claimants or the
petitioners were the proper parties to make respondents in the appeal was settled by the judgment of the Full Court, which is cited in paragraph 25, after the matter had been fully argued
by the Petitioners' Counsel.
The petitioners applied for leave to appeal to the Privy Council, but their petition was dismissed by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Hongkong on the 14th. December,
1903. If the petitioners had desired to contest the legality of these decisions of the Full Court they should have applied to His Majesty in Council for special leave to appeal; they did not do so.
Para. 26.
The claimants Lam Tak Luk and Lam Cheung Fuk covenanted with the purchasers from them that their title was good and that they would do everything necessary to complete it. These purchasers also covenanted with the petitioners to the same effect, therefore, by virtue of these covenants the petitioners might reasonably call upon the claimants to contest the appeal and the petitioners would have been justified in supplying the claimants with funds for such contest; a step
which
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.