Page 328
The petitioners allege that the main ground of the decision of the Full Court was that the deed dated 10th January, 1883, (Exhibit B), under which the plaintiffs (i.e. claimants) claim their rights to the ground, was a forgery.
They stated that it was, however, apparently never brought to the attention of the Court that the said deed had in fact been registered in the Land Registry of the Magistrate's Yamen of the Sun On District.
This statement of the Petitioners is absolutely incorrect as is shown by the affidavit on the file in the Supreme Court made by Yim Ming Kuk, then Magistrate of the Sun On District on the 12th December, 1903, in which he states, amongst other things, that this deed marked B is a forgery and ought to be cancelled and that the seal upon it (i.e. the seal purporting to be that of the Sun On Magistrate) is not the seal of the Sun On Magistracy.
The only evidence of the registration of this deed is the impression of the seal which the Magistrate, who had the custody of the genuine seal, declared to be a forgery. The "Kai Ping" or deed-end which should have been attached...
Zara. 27.
However, they did not do this, but upon the rejection of their motion to be added as parties they left the appeal entirely in the hands of the claimants, who, being men of practically no means were unable to afford Counsel's fees, and consequently were not represented before the Full Court.
Another reason for the neglect of the claimants to defend the appeal might have been that they were afraid that the forgery and fraud in which they were implicated might be discovered.
Forgery of Deed.
328
.sasdorug svitsivooqe vistuq a new að MİY
.JOSTHOD ed of exseqqs rid"
draugis to rettam a al el riqerg8769
erw molteni v alenne10 bns niet .ateret
.ei .87
OS .81s
moltesi'`itart or new evert dolriw not noliqruraas erit no boas₫
1
to Beesel Awo77, FN873 bluow tneantsvoŊ edð dødt omið bad da
10% be merg saont of tsiimis misfo eft nt bebufont søte spl
MOT sonshiva bentetɗo tremnevon ad .stoj satra noole,
noitqrumas art no mave,noitavist elda tads bewona notriw afreqx:
ISYOWON quiry to notdeeup sit A „ÍKANAVATÍxe daor a8W betsta
.beouhong Jon esw somebive strit bounts rever asw
-*00 sɗ od "aeqqe ES hra SS, IS Bdqstys787 .ES of IS 818¶
.J097-
which they would have taken, I think, if they had been properly
advised.
Zara. 27.
However, they did not do this, but upon the
rejection of their motion to be added as parties they left the
appeal entirely in the hands of the claimants, who, being men
of practically no means were unable to afford Counsel's fees,
and consequently were not represented before the Full Court.
Another reason for the neglect of the
claimants to defend the appeal might have been that they were
afraid that the forgery and fraud in which they were implicated
might be discovered.
end to etnemtalo and verifery noltesup ef .Es bes AS .876
sde mi strebnoqɛer exem of esitaq reqorq snd #now eronoiditng
si fol.iw drvo [[e end to tremhul, add yɗ belttea amw (asoqs
bomra vllut nead bar rettsm and redta‚ès digerneteq ol batto
.Isemod anexoldite end yo
་
Iseqne of evael tot beliggs erenoititeq eNT
edt vd beanimelb now notðijag sted and,Ilomod ywing ort of
***I sat no goodno to Juod amorque and to dive? I
.800[ reɗmeos?
srit tastroo of beslech bar arenoiðijaq and 11
svar hluoda vard dewoo [Im ent to anotaloob saert to vilispol
¡Isoqqa od svani (sioeqa not Ilonwob at ytesla“ ety of bellogs
.08 ob dom bih veri
anwaro mal bna XvI det mal atremiato ent
.8$ .8189
It led tærið morð mort arenadorug add ddiw bejnanevoo Xu“
stelqmos of viszɛsoon gaiddyreve ob blow yard tedd bra boog esv
of stanoldidag erið dáte betnenevoo oals areasfioruq saent .**
si atnsnevoo easɗt to Buttiv vď *To terten ,#pette erma erit
testnos of atmamtalo srit noqu Iimo videnoaser tripir atenoidideq
at beltdeut need ever binow stecol¿l'eq erit bna Isoqqe sdt
qete e idestnon dove To" about Złłw atnambalo sit putyiqqua doiw
Forgery of Deed.
and
The petitioners allege that the main ground
of the decision of the Full Court was that the deed dated 10th.
January, 1883, (Exhibit B), under which the plaintiffs (1.e.
claimants) claim their rights to the ground, was a forgery,
they stated that it was, however, apparently never brought to
the attention of the Court that the said dead had in fact been
registered in the Land Registry of the Magistrate's Yamen of
the Sun On District.
This statement of the Petitioners is
absolutely incorrect as is shown by the affidavit on the file
in the Supreme Court made by Yim Ming Kuk then Magistrate of
the Sun On District on the 12th. December, 1903, in which he
states, amongst other things, that this deed marked B is a forgery and ought to be cancelled and that the seal upon it (1.e. the seal purporting to be that of the Sun On Magistrate) is not the seal of the Sun On Magistracy.
The only evidence of the registration of this deed is the impression of the seal which the Magistrate, who had the custody of the genuine seal, declared to be a forgery. The "Kai 1" or dead-end which should have been
attached
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.