CO129-481 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1923 [8-12] — Page 431

£31

Sexvediora

.1900

424

„Viajeros? IrinoloD „noH „prubsoo19¶ Livið To ensð add to OB) moltɔes teenŬ

moitos edit to anmeumitnoo art of Imanos akronovoð Brit and ytiðaug hluow na abnuoʻng doue moqu bierkitiw ad yam" ĐỈNH " được BÀN SHIBI ĐI ai bme Land Ye desened parod ad¿ ‚eɔniq #mtit add ni „nektivskrtků zanim owd senist at!! To Jait adt at breland mà tchèn to noižideq e no tai? „nentybe vietom letanað vantaðýk adá brm andX sit pinojall sruter of and aid to meltemnih add ‚eoniq brense art ni erð ví otak berimpre ad dømmes hmm stulende ni dalt and a eneig at maaa,beres terá o add me

·

To trbukt mit no jeno eigar a dgvodð „nokámáimli produdeða esit[volib osaft „maenos eld blomkitkw od tortavoð stíž

OM OSUBORO „Drattoqni (soktowną sittii to vidadong are yne mi neanco mid sviş eyevin binow tortavoð síð ⚫Juob osivba ot ylədil að bluar Iprenel yerta‡‡å adź fɔkdw ni seso yos ni videderg bra „banis vt dit grid to gridmena erit Troved at balog and shineh binow monzavod art send (utjevok

Celinem Validity, Med 1865 sec 4

**??itoka£q wild Yo

24

tom One of zo Ost, rags

ea Juanadada lerenes que elan of Flude17th at JI

ad viroqonę drain deit # doidw ni aseo To assin súź of add to yàuh mit deið tamis ni di tad „branfgrå nå bemnifter homitron Jom al dalo e danžege onlybe od [zzard yarTOJ JA

=rdalell elquexe to? (see :amoititeq suolovitý to arms and ot dreude bre „I* .q‚O[ amolov,breland to need aler ‚"word and tenisşın bir yď sgribesseri (¿við a'montredof

varriottā arīź dizidw nk,878 Benno reddo and der . .Ę

+[ool**ib si Ji „dni) e Jantage anithe vinoqonq difsim Inzamað

་

duob on Jud osad Jaixa dołów afeitadan add moth yes of

add yd bənzədɗo eď vlinne bluon telaq akit mo maštamatni

pitamolgih eldinnoq 11 deuab sinum vrav I „ajade to vinjeIDS?

„Jait e gabeuter tot bruota tre ad binow Fremaa eTzadno

and mo,bed ai moltitaq dwaserq séð þarf að yem JI

bruota

2*

Un Tu

ground that it is founded in tort, end that the Governor's consent might therefore properly be refused. In De Keyser's Case Lord Dunedin said, that if the taking in that case had been illegal the petition of right would not have lain. Here, the plaintiffs allege a wrongful taking. In spite of this it may be that the consent might properly be given, because there is a substantiel question to be decided, i.e., the validity of two Ordinences, and the natural parties in such an issue are the plaintiffs and the Crown. Further, any refusel of consent would probably result in an action for damages against some officer of the Government, and the Government would have to defend that action.

4. There are of course several possible defences to the petition. In the first place, it is arguable that the mon-disallowance of the Ordinances by His Majesty The King cures any invalidity; see on this point Re Ju Ki Shing (1908) 3 Hongkong Law Reports 20. Again it can be argued that the Ordinance is not made invalid by failure on the part of the Governor to observe his instructions, provided that the Ordinance falls within the powers conferred by Article II of

X

the Letters Patent. I refer to the Letters Patent of the 19th January, 1888. The present letters Patent and Royal Instructions were issued after the passing of the two Ordinances now attacked.

5. It is also erguable that neither Ordinance is inconsistent with the Convention. It may be said that the particular provision objected to in the New Territories Ordinance, 1910, was enacted merely for convenience in the settlement of titles, that resumption with compensation is not expropriation, that the land has been taken for an "official purpose", and that it has in effect been bought at

a fair price determined by arbitration. It is also a question whether the plaintiffs can bring themselves within the term "inhabitante".

6.