Sessional_Paper_1886-1887 — Page 517

APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM THE LAND COMMISSION OF 1886-87.

Appendix No. 4.

JUDGMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF HONGKONG.

No. 1.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONGKONG.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION,

Suit No. 61 of 1878.

25

Between Ow YEONG KWON SEK, Plaintiff,

and

TANG A LOK, Defendant.

Judgment of The Honourable Sir George Phillippo Kt., Chief Justice, delivered 21st May, 1883.

This suit, which has been pending for a long time, was brought by the plaintiff in respect of Inland Lot No. 323, which was taken by the Government in 1876 for a market, and for which certain lands were given by the Government to the defendant in exchange. Neither the plaintiff nor defendant deserve any sympathy in this case, the one having abandoned his property according to his own account, and the other having, according to his account, purchased without any title and spent money upon the land which he had so acquired.

Like other cases which have come before the Court, it shows how little in former days the interests of the Crown have been looked after, and it also seems to show that if some measures are not speedily taken to prevent it, before very long many of the titles to land in the Colony will be in a state of great if not hopeless confusion. It is admitted on both sides that in February, 1851, Inland Lot No. 323, which had been previously granted by the Crown, was assigned by the assignee of the original Crown Lessee, and that a memorial was registered at the Land office of an assignment from Lok AYEE to Ow YEONG KWON SEK. The plaintiff alleges that the land was purchased by his father for him, and that the assignment was taken by his father purposely in his name, and that his father let him into possession, and that in 1854 or about that time he built three wooden houses thereon, and let the land and premises to one WONG YEE for $9 per month, payable quarterly. That he received three quarters' rent from WONG YEE when he borrowed $100 from him upon an agreement that he should pay himself out of the rent, and shortly after left Hongkong and did not return until 1876, when he returned in consequence of some letters he received from the defendant addressed to his father in respect of this land. It further appeared from the evidence that WONG YEE had parted with the land in question to TANG ALOK, but it was alleged that the plaintiff was not the Ow YEONG KWON SEK to whom the land was assigned by Lok AYEE, but that this real Ow YEONG KWON SEK OF KUM SEK was an older man, a carpenter by trade, who has never been heard of by any one for many years.

That this OW YEONG KWON SEK allowed the Crown rent to fall into arrear, when the land was sold by public auction and was bought at auction by WONG YEE for $44. There is no doubt that the defendant entered into possession and was in possession for many years but there is no satisfactory evidence of any sale by auction or purchase by WONG YEE. In 1876 the property was required by Government for a market and negotiations were opened with TANG ALOK for an exchange with him of other land for the land in question. It was soon discovered, however, that TANG ALOK had no title. TANG ALOK seems to have referred to WONG YEE, but WONG YEE had no title either. Whether the sale by auction had been mentioned to any one before or whether it was then suggested for the first time is not clear, but at any rate it appears to have been communicated to the Crown Solicitor that such was the case and the Crown Solicitor seems to have suggested a statutory declaration by WONG YEE and TANG ALOK and a surrender to the Crown by WONG YEE and TANG ALOK of the land in question and a Crown grant to TANG ALOK of the land to be exchanged. We are not informed as to when this suggestion of the Crown Solicitor was made, but TANG ALOK seems immediately to have opened negotiations with WONG YEE to induce him to sign the necessary papers. WONG YEE, however, who it is said was living at Chinese Kowloon, was not inclined to do so without being paid for his trouble, and according to TANG ALOK's own account wanted $300 for his trouble. This TANG ALOK was unwilling to pay and he wrote the following letter to the father of the plaintiff :-

(Translation.)

A

SIR,

To Mr. SHUN, my benevolent brother,

HONGKONG, 7th April, 1876.

I respectfully state that notwithstanding I am a great distance from you, you are always in my mind. Trusting that you and your family are enjoying perfect health and good luck, and your sons and grandsons are worthy and virtuous. I am very thankful for the good advice which you have so constantly given me when you were in Hongkong, I have lately bought a piece of ground from WONG YEE situated at Wanchai, Inland Lot No. 323. Now the British Government used the said ground for forming a market, and they agree to give the ground No. 686 Saiyingpún in exchange, but they are so dull of understanding and foolish and say that I have no deed for the former ground to hold for proof and they press me to find out a witness to give satisfactory proof before the exchange be undertaken. I understood that this