[ { "id": 209805, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1983", "page_number": 64, "title": "RAS-1983", "content_text": "42\n\nattempt to see if the customs were general throughout the New Territories.1\n\nThe Communist army reached Canton in October 1949. Shortly before and after that date, floods of refugees poured into the New Territories, many of them later engaging in agriculture, mostly vegetable farming. Up until then, natives of the New Territories were primarily rice farmers, living in long-established villages with customs and practices that regulated their lives. The only land available for cultivation by refugees tended to be marginal land without water. The refugees dug wells, made new paths, leased land from New Territories natives, and erected shacks all over the place (before October 1949 there were virtually no temporary structures in the Tai Po district). The energy, initiative and desperate attempts by the refugees to earn a living in new communities where neighbours seldom knew each other resulted in their following a way of life without traditional rules of conduct. To some extent, this washed off on the traditional New Territories natives, aggravated by the movement from 1951 onwards of New Territories men to emigrate overseas and to the urban areas of Hong Kong and Kowloon. This movement tended to break down the old indigenous customs.\n\nIn 1953-55, in Yuen Long, I used to have regular discussions with certain village elders who were locally acknowledged as experts on traditional customs; they proved most co-operative when they appreciated my interest in the subject. I always cross-checked the information with other local informants, but had neither the opportunity nor the need at the time to cross-check further afield so as to ascertain how widespread the custom was or the extent to which it applied to both Punti and Hakka communities. It must be accepted therefore that, in the absence of further proof, these customs may not necessarily have been uniformly observed throughout the New Territories or elsewhere in Kwangtung.\n\nFrom September 1953 to early 1954, in addition to my work as District Officer, I was also Police Court Magistrate (in Ping Shan), Assistant Land Officer (holding Land Courts), and Small Debts Court Magistrate. These had always been the functions of the District Officers at Tai Po and Yuen Long. But, during my", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1983.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/j9607p61v", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209806, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1983", "page_number": 65, "title": "RAS-1983", "content_text": "43\n\ntime at Tai Po (1949-51), a separate District Officer (now Sir Donald Luddington) had undertaken the Court duties. My Court duties in Yuen Long provided yet another insight into local custom. For instance, if it were not for the several cases that arose in the Small Debts Court, I might never have understood the workings of money loan associations. The frequent Land Courts (often two a day in 1955) provided a wealth of information about agricultural leases, inheritance, graves, and fung shui,\n\nIn 1951, I served for a time in the former Secretariat for Chinese Affairs where my duties required me to spend part of every day attempting to resolve family disputes, mostly matrimonial. This provided much background material on the status of parties.\n\nIn those more settled days, when communications were difficult and New Territories villages lacked newspapers, radio and television, tradition tended to rule the conduct of villagers, just as rice cultivation ruled the village economy. Traditional customs no longer carry the same weight these days, and in some cases are all but forgotten. Rice cultivation continues in only a few remote corners of the New Territories. Its implements and associated equipment (such as ploughs, harrows, winnowing machines) are hardly recognised by the new generation which may have little idea of how their grandparents lived. Wealth in those days was equated with the number of rice fields owned, and rice depended on a plentiful supply of water. Hence the old Chinese saying \"Shui wai choi\" (**水為財**), meaning \"Water makes riches\". The English reply might be that, since then, much water has flowed under the bridge.\n\n2.\n\nSuccession\n\n(a) By Chinese custom there is no such thing as testamentary disposition of property. All a man's \"will\" can do is permit his widow(s) to remarry, and to moralize for the sons' edification. There may have been some doubt in the past whether by English law a New Territories domiciled person can make a valid will disposing of New Territories property otherwise than as custom would have directed anyhow. But this of course is no", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1983.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/j9607p61v", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 213438, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1995", "page_number": 34, "title": "RAS-1995", "content_text": "ARTICLES\n\nCHINESE CUSTOMARY LAW IN HONGKONG'S NEW TERRITORIES. SOME LEGAL PREMISES.\n\nEDWIN HAYDON\n\nLast year [1961—Editor] the legislation regulating the New Territories of Hong Kong was amended1 and jurisdiction was conferred on the Supreme Court of Hong Kong and on the District Courts subordinate to it.\n\n\"to hear and determine all questions and disputes at law or in equity in connexion with or in anywise arising out of or regarding any land in the New Territories.\"\n\nAt the same time the Land Officer was divested of his former powers to decide questions of land in the New Territories summarily,3 and District Officers were divested of the summary jurisdiction, which for many years4 they had exercised in Small Debts Courts, in actions or matters where the claim, debt or damages sought to be recovered did not exceed one thousand dollars. Since 1953 the District Courts had exercised a concurrent jurisdiction with the Small Debts Courts in such actions. The effect, therefore, of this amending legislation was to confer from henceforth exclusive jurisdiction in all proceedings arising in the New Territories on the courts of law staffed by the professional Judiciary.\n\nSection 17 of the New Territories Ordinance reads:\n\n\"In any proceedings in the Supreme Court or the District Court in relation to land in the New Territories, the court shall have power to recognize and enforce any Chinese custom or customary right affecting such land.\n\nSo much is clear in respect of land cases, but in respect of other proceedings which may involve Chinese custom or customary right one must search further back to the source from which the British Crown's rights in the New Territories spring.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1995.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/95941j25g", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 213442, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1995", "page_number": 38, "title": "RAS-1995", "content_text": "CHOK HUNG vs. LI FUI CHOI\n\n\"No enquiry has ever been made to ascertain what Chinese law is. It is an extraordinary fact that the Court of this Colony, in which the Chinese live and trade as freely as Englishmen and citizens of other countries, should do with regard to the Chinese what it would never dream of doing with regard to Frenchmen or Germans or Americans; and not only that, but that it should be entirely in ignorance of Chinese law on any subject which concerns the family life and family law of those who form the bulk of its inhabitants, which is so often before the Courts—its marriage law, and the rights of property it gives; its law applicable to children. We are in the dark as to the law of majority, as to the customary law of China generally, and above all as to its law of succession. The attitude of the Court has been to let the troublesome question wait until it is definitely raised by the parties. I myself have been guilty of this, though I have rebelled more than once or twice.\n\nPage 20\n\nDuring the last half century, there have been three such enquiries, of which the results have been published. I refer, of course, to the Report of the Committee appointed in 1948,1 Greenfield's article on marriage,2 and the report and recommendations on the same subject by the Attorney General and Secretary for Chinese Affairs in 1960.2 The latter two publications do not deal with any Chinese customary law of marriage particularly obtaining in the New Territories, but the first does deal with certain aspects of Chinese customary law peculiar to the New Territories.\n\nIf a search is made of the law reports, only two cases will be found where the particular Chinese customary law obtaining in the New Territories was considered. Prima facie, that is a remarkably small number for 57 years of law reporting, and it is worthwhile probing the reasons for this dearth of case law.\n\nFirstly, the Chinese much prefer to compose their disputes or to refer them to extra-judicial arbitration than to a court of law.**\n\nSecondly, in deference to this general desire of the litigants, the District Officers arranged for the bulk of the disputes which came before them, in their Small Debts Courts or when they sat as Assistant Land Officers to decide summary land cases, to be settled out of court, most", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1995.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/95941j25g", "rank": 0 } ]