Denoting Lam Tak Luk and Lam Cheung Fuk, the Purchasers and Assignees under the said Deed of the 10th January, 1883. Receipts extended from 1887 to 1898.
4. It is clear therefore that for at least 11 years the Chinese Government recognised Lam Tak Luk and Lam Cheung Fuk, the Assignees under the said Deed, by accepting payment of taxes from them. After having done so, how was it open to the Chinese Government in the year 1904 to turn round and allege that the said Deed was a forgery?
5. We repeat that these important facts, namely as to the receipt of taxes for 11 years by the Assignees under the said Deed of 10th January, 1883, were not brought to the notice of the Full Court on the hearing of the Appeal by those representing the Crown.
6. In fact, the hearing of the Appeal was of a most perfunctory character. It was practically ex-parte. The Affidavits on the part of the Crown were merely read; there was no proper investigation or discussion of the facts or circumstances of the case, and the Judgment of the Land Court was reversed on what we submit were very insufficient grounds.
7. This only shows the radical injustice and unfairness of the exclusion of Tong Wan Chiu and Ku Fai Shan, who, as pointed out in paragraph 24 of our clients' Petition, were the only persons interested in the result, from appearing on the Appeal and stating and arguing their case before the Full Court.
Hon. Mr. F. H. May, C.M.G., Colonial Secretary.
P.5.
We have etc.,
(sd.) Hastings and Hastings.
We are instructed to bring the matter before the Secretary of State, and will shortly send you a Petition, which we will ask you to be good enough to forward.
}
!
336
,bara fat
SW
Ilgofod and of artdealt bra arnitask .ataas mo**
x
• Visje1092
.***
Todjel Tox to Jginner egbefvondos of ned
moldides set of viver nt ,SORI to SI ."Holt .4685 mit bet:b X km a new gro? to enxiuduosx old atrailo tuo te sueens of Idun ni yorali voxã all telt an coat woy otw nt
.erenol tret out to TaysTq quld ot RAJVAI TO% to 3 dysrgsısq of viger al
S nað en so ojentalos: add to tirsbittА ¤A teid STAwa tłup a16 offt,moiniqo aid mi Found Joothe oil at belt? aew torteld o
wo dom ob s
.vraquot @ BW,¿MAI, stammet, .Nt0l edt to bost tud „Jivabitta as done ader of baombet nav stenbeiąsk odd wor era entrebits caening taut eghelvond normoo ai i seso vas ni done vi esashive uno bia,baigtorieqru bua ¿qımzoo vlanaltodom motolqave Jaetsers and dełw bavicson of taum ntisbusí s Jon at bus,jivabitta vd nevie et omna erit nedw vllatoque .noitentasxo-uaoto to taet Lavey or of tootdna
*
-qa stiup ton svart woy Reveword dat s
t
.Ĉ
*atustiɔ wo to VS dqeneraq ni obam Inlog sdt betalseng- thebive at *I :awoffo7 es at dntoq Tetten sint mi moljitef batata davort(s) CARI Visunst .01 ms to besh blea eft tarit beetroost mand tɔst at bail (vreyrol a eɗ of stærtriyali edt d
•Jakq arsa vnam tot saltbrodtuk suami? But yɗ noqu hatoa bre to gattsen adt no ni dug snow fotów etnomuoob moil aisoqqs ald" seanido ent of bisq esxat rot atqtooer odt viemen IseqqA sst atqinoer seen? noitesup at broad end to dosqaer al fnemnevoľ eman ylimet odt,gnIY JUY asw xad add to nøyaq edt tant eteja
Batoneh
These tax
denoting Lam Tak Luk and Lam Cheung Fuk, the Purchasers and
Assignees under the said Deed of the 10th. January, 1883. receipts extended from 1887 to 1898.
4.
It is clear therefore that for at least
11 years the Chinese Government recognised Lam Tak Luk and Lam
Cheung Fuk the Assignees under the said Deed by accepting pay-
-ment of taxes from them.
After having done so, how was it open to the
Chinese Government in the year 1904 to turn round and allege
that the said deed was a forgery?
5.
We repeat that these important facts,
namely as to the receipt of taxes for 11 years by the Assignees
under the said Deed of 10th. January, 1883, were not brought
to the notice of the Full Court on the hearing of the Appeal,
by those representing the Crown.
6.
In fact the hearing of the Appeal was of a
most perfunctory character. It was practically exparte. The
Affidavits on the part of the Crown were merely read; there
was no proper investigation or discussion of the facts or
circumstances of the case, and the Judgment of the Land Court
was reversed on what we submit was very insufficient grounds.
7.
This only shews the radical injustice and
unfairness of the exclusion of Tong Wan Chiu and Ku Fai Shan,
who as pointed out in paragraph 24 of our clients' Petition
were the only persons interested in the result, from appearing
on the Appeal, and stating and arguing their case before the
Full Court.
Hon. Mr. F. H. May, C.M.G.,
Colonial Secretary.
P.5.
We have etc.,
(sd.) Hastings and Hastings.
We are instructed to bring the matter before
the Secretary of State, and will shortly
send you a Petition, which we will ask you
to be good enough to forward.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.