64
|
freely advertised through the Tang Wa Hospital. When the date for the enforce- ment of the law was approaching near, a confidential meeting wheld by the Sanitary Board to discuss the advisability of enforcing the law. Mesars Fung Wa Chun and Lau Chn Pak again opposed, but they were overruled by a majority. It was said that though the notice had appeared so long in the Gazette, not a word as to the unpracticability of the new Ordinance hid been received from the Chinese. Sappors were then engaged to survey and measure the houses and notices served out. His Excellency the Governor, seeing the sad p'ight the Chinese would be reduced to, instructed the President of the Sauilary Board to invite the Chinese land-owners to meet him and make suggestions. But after two meetings nothing definite could be arrived at. Those who attend. ed the meetings had nothing to suggest, but simply said "Impracticable Ultimately an- other meeting was convened at the Chinese Commercial Union and it was there decided to ask the Government to allow two enbicles on each floor, one at the treat and one in front, and also low the space between the two cuticles to be used for sleeping purposes. A deputation led by Mr. Fung Wa Chua went to the Registrar-General's office to wait on the President of the Sanitary Board. Unexpectedly before any discussiou took plac, Mr. Fung rose, saying that the appointment had i etter be quashed, as he had just at that moment received anote from Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master on behalf of the Nam Pak, Kau Pat And the Australian and Californian firms to the effect that the decision of the Chinese Com- mercial Union and what. Fer concessions the deputation might obtain would not be binding on them, etc. "As I have received such a note," said Mr. Fung, "I do not propose to go on with the meeting.' So all those who attended dispersed. No steps have been taken since. Though the Government makes laws, yet it gives the people the privil- ege to appeal, if any law does not suit them. But the people must be of the same mind, and be sure of what they want. It won't do for any one section to grow after what has been done. I would refrain from contradicting you, if I had not thought that your incorrect statements would likely throw cold water on those who have the welfare of the Chinese at heart. Yours, etc.,
FAIRPLAY.
13
TO THE EDITOR OF THE "DAILY PRESS.'
18, Bank Buildings, Hongkong 18th July, 1903. SIR-The statement of Fairplay" with reference to myself, which is quoted in your issue of this date, is wholly erroneous. The European community did not engage my services at all in connection with the above Ordinance-Yours, etc.,
11. E. POLLOCK.
THE NEW TERRITORIES LAND COURT AMENDMENT BILL.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY PRESS,” Hongkong, 22nd July, SIR,It is most earnestly to be hoped that the provisions of the above Bill, which was read for a first and second time at the Council Meeting on Monday, will receive most careful consideration at the hands of the Government and the public, because, it passed into law in its present shape, it seems likely, as I shall presently show, to lead to unexpected and undesirable consequences.
All the material portions of the Bill are contained in Clause 2, which runs as follows :- "The Chief Justice may at any time upon good cause shown grant 10 the Crown leave to appeal to the Full Court. of the Supreme Court from any decision of the Land Court heretofore made or hereafter to be made, on any claim in relation to land in the New Territories, whether the Crown did or did not appear before the said Land Court on the bearing of such claim; and may, pending such appeal, stay all proceedings arising directly or indirectly out of any decision on any such claim BO appealed from."
Nobody will be disposed to dispute the abstract justice of giving to the Crown a right
|
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
of appeal from the decisious of the Land Court, but when it is proposed to make such a right retrospective, I submit that the great st caution ought to be exercised in order to ensure that injustice is not inflicted upon parties who possess vestel rights as bona-fide purchasers for value or mortgagees.
Now I believe that I am correct in stating that many contracts for the sale of land in the New Territories were entered into upon the terms that the sale should be carried throngh and the purchase-money paid over if the claim to the land were allowed by the Land Court. Accordingly there must, Í imagine, be many cases in which, in casequence of the Land Court having decided in favour of a claim, the purchase has been com. pleted and the purchase-monsy has bee paid over and the purchaser has either expended money upon the property in the belief that his title to it was incontestable, or els has resold the property to a third party, both parties to such sale believing, as they had the fullest right to do, that the title to the property was absolutely unimpeachable,
The present Bill, however, if passed in its present shape, will render the title of every successful claimant or his assignce insecure, by giving the Crown a retrospective right of appeal in every single case right back to the first decision of the Land Court which was delivered over two years ago.
Moreover, the present Bill does not even stop there, for it confers upon the Crown a right of appeal which extends into the dim and distant future, inasmuch as it exacts that the Chief Justice may at any time grant the Crown leare to appeal; and I maintain that such an unrestricted right of appeal is (1) unfai`, aud (2) prejudicial to the interests of the Crown itself as well as to the interests of successful claimants.
In support of the proposition that such a right of appeal, unlimited as to time, is unfair, I would point out that by Section 16 of the Land Court Ordinance 1900 any claimant who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Land Court has only fourteen days within which to appeal.
|
In support of the proposition that such a right of appeal is prejudicial to the interests of the Crown as well as of successful claimants, I would point out that the result of allowing the Crown an unlimited time for appealing would be that no title to land in the New Territories would ever be settled and secure and nobody would be safe in investing in or expeuding money upon land in the New Territories, because nobody would be certain that the Crown might not in the future appeal from and upset the judgment of the Land Court,
Yet another point in which the proposed Bill is unfair is that it gives the Crown the right to appeal from any decision of the Land Court, whereas by Section 16 of the Land Court Ordinance 1900 no claimant has a right of appeal unless the Land Court certifies that the value of the claim is over $5,000.
Yet again the Bill is unfair in that it grants leave to the Crown to appeal from any decision of the Land Court, whereas by Section 14 of the Land Court Ordinance 1900, the decision of the Land Court as to the amount of com- pensation would be final as against a claimant. In conclusion I would beg leave to make the following suggestions for the consideration of His Excellency the Governor, namely:-
1. That there are such grave risks of unfairly damaging vested interests by making the Crown's proposed right of appeal retrospective that, although the Government may not be altogether satisfied with two or three past decisions of the Land Court, it is preferable, upon the balance of public convenience and public good, not to adopt such an unusual course as to give a retrospective right of appeal which would extend back for over two years and would render in secure the title to every single claim to land which has been allowed by the Land Court.
2. That, as regard appeals from future decisions of the Land Court, no longer period of time çan fairly be accorded to the Crown for appealing than that which is accorded to a claimant. In connection with this point I would venture, however, to suggest that the period of fourteen days, which is mentioned in Section 16 of the Land Court Ordinance 1900, is incon- veniently short, and I would submit that three
[July 27, 1903.
months would be a suitable period to fix upon within which either the Crown or the claimant might appeal.
3. That, agreeably to the provisions of Section 16 of the Land Court Ordinance 1900, the right of the Crown to appeal, like that of a claimant, be limited to cases in which the Land Court shall certify that the value of the claim is over $5,000.
4. That in compensation cages under Section 14 of the Land Conrt Ordiuanco 1900, the Crown and the claimant ought to be put on an equal fooling with one another as to right of appeal, and consequently that, if the words "any decision" are retained in the present Bill, the last son ́ence of Section 14 of the Ordinance of
1900 ought to be repealed.Yours. te..
H. E. POLLOCK.
THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.
TO THE EDITOR (F THE "DAILY PRESS.
Hongkong, 24th July. SIR,-From time to time notices appear in the local Press of cases of cruelty to animals, and we have only too good reason for believing that whatever the actual merits or demerits of each individual caso brought to the notice of the public may be a very great amount of unnecessary and easily prevent- able cruelty takes place in our midst. For some time past enquiries have been made privately with a view to the formation of a local society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, but progress has been impossible owing to the difficulty in finding someone with sufficient leisure to undertake the daties of secretary. That A need exists for such & society will, I think, be generally admitted-this more readily so when is remembered the good work done by the Royal Society at bome. If such a society is needed in Great Britain where for so many years past public sentiment has been educated to consider the humans treatment of animals, how much more must this be the case in a community such as this, largely composed of ignorant lower-class natives who neither by association nor training are restrained from the infiction of suffering upon dumb creation?
I feel convinced from the sympathy already expressed in various quarters that a society for the prevention of cruelty to animals will meet with the required support, once a definite scheme is put before the pubuc. and I am encouraged in the belief that our Chinese friends will also readily join in the movement from the fact that charitable persons in the interior of China found and maintain asylums for ownerless and sick animals. I now therefore venture to urge this question upon public notice throngh the local Press, and to ask those interested to to take the matter up without delay in order that a society may be formed for the protection. of our dumb friends.
While asking assistance from the public we must not ignore the good work done by the Government, which is fully alive to the necessity for putting down all forms of cruelty to animals, and the amp'e provision to deal with this evil provided for by the law; but as we know how greatly this good work is supplemented elso- where by similar institutions we would wish to see in our Colony a like society. I feel sure it only needs a little energy on our part for us to do here what is being so worthily done in other parts of the Empire.Yours, etc.,
EDBERT A. HEWETT.
VESSELS IN THE HARBOUR,
i
TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY PRES8.” Hongkong, 20th July. SIR-It is observed that in the list of vessels advertised as loading, on page b of your paper, the great majority of vessels whose captain's name is omitted, are British ones. Have the... agents of these lines any object in view in witholding the information in question ? Or is it merely another instance of the superiority of British, as compared to foreign, business methods?-Yours, etc.,
ENQUIRER.
[In response to Enquirer we may state that in the cases when captain's names are not given the reason is that the agents do not supply them. We cannot state why.-Ed. D.P]
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.