188
bus agattasl .a" Bask of VIAtet59? Istnefod est mOTT
(770 e'yısderosa Istnofo)
‚reer,dorail .40385,amoxgпoH
PY.
From Messrs. Hastings and Hastings to the Colonial Secretary.
38, Queen's Road Central, Hongkong, 11th. April, 1907.
335
and tent woy irtolak at betoerib ma I
O IPC JSFF*
-xirtuosx" end to not) IJs¶ ent berebienoo YIIuteso aɛd toпtevol tradel tuo at bebiswro? ¿nada ist uX bae uirib new groT to as- -arevor elát most noitae eqnov tot gritanq,dustani
moltventos at berment aoensqxs bau benlstame seasol Tol Jae8- alstrao to ns:h lạt u bna ghio ns" yno ed oesdorug oHG ATIN
alf talt ud,dus qued? Asi kort vtin moolwo) da ytrSKOTY .ateroiditet orts to reveng ent or 959006 of sidam at yons feoX
-sgefis ont deild voy of two dniog of me I
.8
DR
to 301 snt batsh beab erit tørt etsnoltits at yď gold-
,vtraqonq art of abar asw lalo Holiw tebay CABI • VIENNA alatontalgæf wit to widelyef bal eitt nt benetalger need fost ni
need to ban tost aid
,0071000t yioritne at tuo II on to solton erit of trend JIPOD smerquƐ adź ni sitt sat of Dunereler A
Rs eban folytatt no us2 ent) to etentelyak arid dadd woris III.
ratni ostis en of
Toda-09 to .disi erit no divabiks
ed of buro bлs visтrots al of berreter besh art jant siis to Ic9a ad o: gnitroqung i mogu Isae edt dødt bus bellsonso ald Jost mi ton at etsïjaląμM пo ns2 edt
.C
AVAN ET9Koliset erit 21 tart bbe of rs I
versqorg to reasforug & ea Beof more vino at i aaol bersilve .astropnol ad of evoqq absob eltit aaodw of efɗalt si
*.00 vaŃ I
YAM .H .* (.ba)
•VYBJO17502 IsinoIo
.agniðask bna aguides","
Sir,
We beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated the 28th. March, No. 12 of 1902, in reply to the Petition of our clients the Executrixes of Tong Wan Chiu and Ku Fai Shan, in which you inform us that His Excellency is unable to accede to the prayer of the Petitioners.
2.
In reply to paragraph 2 of your letter, we are quite aware that an Affidavit of the Magistrate of the San On District was filed to the effect that, in his opinion, the Deed of the 10th. January, 1883, was a forgery. We do not know how the Magistrate was induced to make such an Affidavit, but in any case it is common knowledge that Chinese Mandarins are notoriously corrupt and unprincipled, and any evidence by such a Mandarin must be received with the greatest suspicion, especially when the same is given by Affidavit, and is not subject to the usual test of cross-examination.
3.
We think however you have not quite appreciated the point made in paragraph 27 of our clients' Petition in this matter. The point is as follows: It is evident that the said deed of the 10th. January, 1883, (although stated by the Magistrate to be a forgery) had in fact been recognised and acted upon by the Chinese Authorities for many years past. This appears from documents which were put in on the hearing of the Appeal, namely the receipts for taxes paid to the Chinese Government in respect of the Land in question. These receipts state that the payer of the tax was Yut Ying, the family name denoting...
188
bus agattasl .a" Bask of VIAtet59? Istnefod est mOTT
•
(770 e'yısderosa Istnofo)
‚reer,dorail .40385,amoxgпoH
PY.
From Messrs. Hastings and Hastings to the Colonial
Secretary.
38, Queen's Road Central,
Hongkong, 11th. April, 1907.
335
and tent woy irtolak at betoerib ma I
O IPC JSFF*
-xirtuosx" end to not) IJs¶ ent berebienoo YIIuteso aɛd toпtevol tradel tuo at bebiswro? ¿nada ist uX bae uirib new groT to as- -arevor elát most noitae eqnov tot gritanq,dustani
moltventos at berment aoensqxs bau benlstame seasol Tol Jae8- alstrao to ns:h lạt u bna ghio ns" yno ed oesdorug oHG ATIN
alf talt ud,dus qued? Asi kort vtin moolwo) da ytrSKOTY .ateroiditet orts to reveng ent or 959006 of sidam at yons feoX
-sgefis ont deild voy of two dniog of me I
.8
DR
to 301 snt batsh beab erit tørt etsnoltits at yď gold-
,vtraqonq art of abar asw lalo Holiw tebay CABI • VIENNA alatontalgæf wit to widelyef bal eitt nt benetalger need fost ni
need to ban tost aid
,0071000t yioritne at tuo II on to solton erit of trend JIPOD smerquƐ adź ni sitt sat of Dunereler A
Rs eban folytatt no us2 ent) to etentelyak arid dadd woris III.
ratni ostis en of
Toda-09 to .disi erit no divabiks
ed of buro bлs visтrots al of berreter besh art jant siis to Ic9a ad o: gnitroqung i mogu Isae edt dødt bus bellsonso ald Jost mi ton at etsïjaląμM пo ns2 edt
.C
AVAN ET9Koliset erit 21 tart bbe of rs I
versqorg to reasforug & ea Beof more vino at i aaol bersilve .astropnol ad of evoqq absob eltit aaodw of efɗalt si
*.00 vaŃ I
YAM .H .* (.ba)
•VYBJO17502 IsinoIo
.agniðask bna aguides","
Sir,
We beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter
dated the 28th. March, No. 12 of 1902, in reply to the Petition
of our clients the Executrixes of Tong Wan Chiu and Ku Fai Shan,
in which you inform us that His Excellency is unable to accede
to the prayer of the Petitioners.
2.
In reply to paragraph 2 of your letter, we
are quite aware that an Affidavit of the Magistrate of the San
On District was filed to the effect that, in his opinion, the
Deed of the 10th. January, 1883, was a forgery. We do not know
how the Magistrate was induced to make such an Affidavit, but
in any case it is common knowledge that Chinese Mandarins are
notoriously corrupt and unprincipled, and any evidence by such a Mandarin must be received with the greatest suspicion, especially when the same is given by Affidavit, and is not
subject to the usual test of cross-examination.
3.
We think however you have not quite ap-
-preciated the point made in paragraph 27 of our clients'
Petition in this matter. The point is as follows: It is evident that the said deed of the 10th. January, 1883, (although stated by the Magistrate to be a forgery) had in fact been recognised and acted upon by the Chinese Authorities for many years past. This appears from documents which were put in on the hearing of the Appeal, namely the receipts for taxes paid to the Chinese Government in respect of the Land in question. These receipts state that the payer of the tax was Yut Ying, the family name
denoting
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.