號
February 28, 1903]
Monday, 16th February
IN APPELLATte Jurisd:CTION.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
¡ bat it was stated in the report of the Land
Court that it was proved.
The Chief Justice remarked that he had teen informed on very credible grounds that at
Before Their HONOURS SIR WILLIAM M. least one-half of the leases that had been ro-
GOODMAN (Chief Justice) and A. G. WISE (Puisne JudGE).
LAND COURT APFEAL.
This was su appjal by Ng Yik Shan as trustee for the Ng family against a decision of the Land Court under the New Territories
Land Court Ordinance, 192, with reference to the lease of a tract of land near Kowloon City.
Mr. T. Morgan Phillips, barrister-at-law (instructed by Mr. G. K. Fall Brutton of Messrs. Mounsey & Brutton, solicitors), appe г- ed for the appellaut; and Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C. (instructed by Mr. P. W. Goldring of Messrs Deacon & Has'ing, solicitors), was for | the respondent,
Mr. Morgan Phillips said that the land in question was Lot 540 of the tract CC shown on the plan put in. Appellant represen ed the Ng family and had unquestionably a paramount title to this land under a red deed held by them. The Wong family in whose favour the Laud Court had decided set up a fiths to the land Lot 50 under a perpetual lease.from the Ng family dated 1801.
The Chief Justics remarked that the Court was now in possession of the report called for from the Land Court setting forth the rea ous for their decision in the case. It was dated 14th February. He would read it if couusel desired.
#8
duced in the Land Court were what would be, in the Supreme Court, called forgeries. What they did over in the New Territory was this. If they bad an old lease, probably written on Chineso paper, the wear and tear of years and the want of safe deposit were such that the thing got all worn and undecipher. able; and then they got some one who could write to re-write what they believed to be their | lease, putting in the same people's names lessees or probably somebody else's. The result was that these deeds werg very unreliable, and the Land Court, which had large ex perience in many thousands of claims, very often found that they could not decido upon deeds. They had to decide upon posses. sion. He must say that in these conflict- ing claims the Land Court bad to face very porplexing and complicated problems. In one case to his own knowledge there were four or five different claimants all supported by deeds, some of which must have forgeries, They must giro the Land Court credit for having enormous experience in the investigation of these claims; the Land Court did not go upou extremely technical legal points that the Supreme Court were obliged to take, for instance: and prima facie it took a good deal to upset u decision of the Land Court.
The Puisse Judge added that the fact found by the Land Court that the Wongs were in extra-possession bofors 866 seemed to him to settle
thy matter.
Mr. Morgan Phillips said it was ordinarily embarrassing to have it sprung upon him now, but agreed to its being read.
|
The Chief Justice proceeded to read the report of the Lind Court, in which were stated the details of the case. The reasons for their decision were in effect that when the New Territories were ceded to Britain in 1893 the Wong family were in possession us cultivators of the land and claimed to have been in possession under a perpetual lease granted in 181. Appellants did not dispute that the Wong family had been in possession at the time the land became British, but claimed that the Wong family held a lease for years, dated 1866, which expired in 1896. It was on behalf of the Wongs asserted and proved to the satisfaction of the Land Court that the Wongs had been in possession for many years and had paid rent to the Ngs up till 1901, The Wongs denied that they ever held any 30 years' lease and no evidence as to the existence of such a lease was given except by one of the appellants. viz., Ng Yik Shan and a witness called by them. Against this there was the absolute denial by the Wongs that any such lease had been granted to them by the Ngs. It was proved that they had held possession of the land before 1866, the date of the allegod lease, and for five years after 1895, the date on which the alleged lease had expired, and had paid rent up to 1991. No 30 years lease was produced, and the .nd Court was satisfied that the 30 years' lease for ground of the description claimed would most unusual form of tenure. Under these circumstances and after carefully considering the whol of the evidence, without deciding | whether the document produced to the Court (Exhibit I) was the actual lease granted to the Wongs iu 1811, the Cort was of opinion that the onus of the proof of the 30 years' lease was thrown upon the appellants, that they had failed to satisfactorily prove to the Court that such lease had ever existed. The Land Court therefore disallowed the claim of the appellants, and, taking into consideration the long posses- sion of the Wongs and the acceptance of rent by the Ngs up to 1901, allowed the claim of the Wongs as perpetual lessees subject to a rent of $2 a year.
ورا
a
|
The Puisue Judge remarked that the main point in the reasons of the Haud Court was that they said they found as a fact that the Wongs were in possession before 1866, the date of the 30 years' lease. If that was so, it was a very good argument in favour of their judgment.
Mr Morgan Phillips sud he was not aware where that was proved.
The Paisae Judge admitted that he himself did not know where the evidence came from,
Mr. Morgan Phillips-Well, with your Lordships' permission I will go on with my
case.
The Chief Justice Well, I thought it better to let you know what was in my mind before yon went farther than to sit silent and let you go on in ignorance of thes › opinions
Mr. Morgan Phillips-It is at any rate invigorating, your Lordship. Proceeding be said his case was that the Wongs were in possession under a 30 years lease granted by Ny Kit Hing to Wong Hop Li, the supposed date of the lease being about 1866. It was a peculiar thing that the lessee in the perpetual leas of 1891 was also Wong Pop Li." The difficulties of the Land Court in a case of this
|
kind were exceedingly great. The claimant had to appear without legal assistance.
The Paisao Judge-The very best provision the Ordinance coutains.
The Chief Justice-What would have hap- pened but for the I and Court I do not know. I am sure there were 50,000 claims.
|
Mr. Morgan Phillips contended that if the claimant had hid legal assistance before the Court attention could have beau called to the points in his favour, such as that strong evidence was given that a 30 years' lease had been granted to the Wong family in 1866, and very possibly the Court might have come to somз other decision. IIs hold that the Land Court were not war- ranted in arriving at the decision they did coma to.
|
The Chief Justic)-You s np the 30 years' lease. Why did you not produce it?
H
|
Mr. Morgan Phillips said he could not, because the Wongs hd it in their possession and would not give it up. The was Do ovidence, he argued, that the Wongs were in possession of the land before 1866,
Mr. Pollock said be thought his learned frieud was in error, There was the witness Wong Kam Chun.
Mr. Morgan Phillips-Probably that is the man who was committed for perjury.
Mr. Pollock replied that be was not. He came biok from Queensland som five years ago after 38 years' absence, and he stated that he remembered his father paying rent to the Ng family for the land 49 or 50 years ago.
141
them being dead and two of them not born at that time. The lessee was born in 1810 and died in 1883. In 1803 there was a dispute between the two families about this piec. of land. It was decided by the elders. The loase was produced and the elders held that the le se had not expired, and accordingly the Wongs remained in possession. He pro; osed to call evidence to show that the perpetual lease was a forgery.
Mr. Pollock objected to the admission of new evidence.
This objection their Lordships upheld, and, after consultation, dismissed the appeal with costs.
The Court adjourned.
Wednesday, 18th February.
IN CRIMINAL Jurisdiction.
BEFORE HIS HONJUR Sir William M. Goodman (Chier Justice).
A SERIOUS OFFENCE.
Liu Ngau and Mo Fat pleaded not guilty to a charge of sodomy.
The following jury was empanelled :-Mosers. P. E. da Silva, J. Lacock, W. A. Stopani, A. M. Barradas, Ho Kom Tong, J. Lysaught, and M. J. Danenberg.
After hearing evidence, the jury found the prisoners guilty.
His Lordship rentenced the first prisoner to three years' imprisonment with hard labour and the second to 18 months.
Mr. Morgan Phillips went on to say that the case for the appell int was that the perpetual lease was a forgery and that the 30 years" leass, of the existence of which there was ample evidence, had ben suppressɔl by the Wong | family. The lease dated 1831 purported to be granted by seven persons. He would call evidence to show that four of them were not 'living at the time the deed was executed-two of
ROBBERY.
Lenug Chung Wa pleaded guilty to a charge of having committed robbery. It appears that prisoner along with two others attacked a man who had just been to the money-changers and from him stole 8100. The prisoner thiew pepper in the man's eyes and bis confederates assisted to rob him. Prisoner was arrested by a passer- by who gave chase.
"His Lordabip passed sentence of three years' hard labour with one flogging of 20 strokes of the birch within the first week.
ARMED ROBBERY AFPAIN,
Chan wa: and Lan Sang wero obarged with having on 28th December committed armed robbery at Wongueiwa on the Kowloon side and also with wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
They pleaded not guilty.
o'clock in
The Attorney-General Si Henry 8. Berkeley, who conducted the prosecution (Instruct d by Mr. F. B. L. Bowley, Crown Solicitor), said that they were charged with a very serious offence-robbery being armed with deadly weapons, which they did not hesitate to use with ffect upon the person of the principal witness for the Crown, Shek Lui Fa. “He would put in the statement of one of the prisonors who admitted baving had a quarrel with Shek and that he went to his house to beat him but said he did not steal. Shek Lui Fu was a gardener. On 28th December about six the evening he was ly ng in a matshed near his house when he heard someone entering the house. He went in and was immediately attacked by two men, who struck him on the head with a stick and knifed him in the back. The two men then held him down while other two went into his wife's room, ono | of them armed with a revolver, and ransacked the place, carrying away over $100 dollars and aquantity of jewelry. When the man was released he rap after the robbors, and in chasing them fell down some steps and was so seriously hurt that what with his wounds and injuries he was in hospital for three weeks.
neighbour attracted by the noise saw two men running away and give chase to ode whom he ran to earth in a water-hole. This was the first prisoner. He pointed a revolver at his pursuer and fixed twios it hịm point-blank but fortunately the revolver missed fire and the robber was secured after a struggle. Another neighbour also gave obase and captured the second: prisoner. On both men part of the stolen property was found.
After hearing evidence the jury found the the charge proven.
The Attorney-General said he had Intended to put an indictment against the first prisoner Chan Kwai of attempt to shoot with intent to murder. He woukl now withdraw that charge. His Lordship sentenced the first prisoner to
Page 20Page 21
..
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.