180
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
The Attorney-General appears here to-day, in to them. The erection of the said matshed is pursuance of the notice of motion, to_explain also a breach_by the Governm-nt of the raid the facts to the Court said to ask the Court to agreement and Crown lease. Furthermore the deal with the question of costs. It is unneces-plaintiffs submit that the said indiscrimin te sary to formally dismis An application which searching is illegal and that being offensive to has been withdrawn, but I must deal with the the said passengers it has very detrimentally costs. In my opinion, the appeilant has not affected the plaintiffs' business. (8 The dealt properly with the Court or the respondent. plaintiff's have repeatedly requested the Fovern- He had no right, after waiting nearly two years, ment to remove the said matshed, but the to make up his mind whether he would or not Government has declined so to do. (9) After | proceed with his motion for leave to appeal, thus the commencement of these proceedings the taking undue advantage of the adjournment sine Government without notice to the plaintiffs die, to have expected a further indulgence of removed the said matshed which was therefore two months. It was right, therefore, for the in actual contact with the said now wharf, respondent to bring the matter before me, for and which had been injured in a typhoon, and the Court has inherent jurisdiction to prevent erected a similar matshed (hereinafter called the abuse of its process, and unless the Attorney the substitute:!) matshed in a position about General had attended to explain the position of five feet away from the said new wharf. The the matter the Court would not have been able substituted matshed has since been used for the to deal with it. I therefore allow the cost of purpose of the opium search as afores 1. The this motion, including the appearance of the substitute I matshed prevents the access of ves- Attorney-General (the respondent) and direct sels to part of the said now wharf and is in fact that they be paid by the appellant, Chiu Hook a serious obstruction to the plaintiffs' use there. Lam.
of and is generally injurious to the plaintiffs and contrary to their rights as was the said former ma'shed. The plaintiffs claim: -(1) A. declaration by this honourable Court that the erection and maintenance of the said matshed is a breach by the Government of the said agree. ment and Crowu lease, aud that the erection and maintenance of the substituted matshed is a breach by the Government of the said Crown lease. (2) An iujunction to restrain the Government from continuing the said breach of the said Crown Lease and from obstructing the plaintiffs' use of their wharf as aforesaid and from continuing the said injuries to the plain- tiffs.. (3) Damages for the said breach and obstruction and injuries. (4) Their costs of this action. (5) Such other relief as to this honourable Court shall seem fit.
Monday, 10th August.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION,
BEFORE HIS HONOUR A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE).
ACTION AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. A case was called in which the Hongkong, Canton and Macao Steamboat Co., Ld., sued the Attorney-General for damages in reference to the erection of a matched contiguous to the Company's wharf on the Praya. Mr. E. H. Sharp, K. C. (instructed by Mr. H. J. Gedge of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes & Master, solicitors), appeared for the plaintiffs, and on the other side the Hon. Attorney-General, Sir Henry S. Berkeley, appeared (instructed by Mr. F. B. L. Bowley, Crown Solicitor).
In their statement of defence the defendant admitted paragraphs 1, 6, and 8 of the amended statement of claim, and admitted the making The plaintiffs in their statement of claim set and execution of the two successive lease in out:-(1) The plaintiffs are shipowners carry-paragraph 2, but denied the validity of the bases ing on business in this colony and other places, and having their registered office at No. 18, Queen's Road Central, Victoria, in this Colony. (2) Since about the year 1875 the plaintiffs have been and they now are the lessees from one Choy A Chan of a wharf in front of the property registered in the land office of this Colony as Marine Lot No. 22, and also of the sole right to erect wharves in front of the sail property under two successive lenses dated respectively the 6th December, 1875, and the 1st May, 1884. The second (whereto the plaintiffs crave leave to refer) of the said leases was for a period of 21 years from 31st December, 1885, and is still in force. (3) In or about the year 1903 the Government having reclaimed from the sea land contiguous to the said property it became necessary to remove the said wharf, and the plaintiffs under the terms of the said lease dated the 1st May, 1884, erected a new wharf front of the said reclamation. (4) By an indenture of Crown lease (whereto also the plaintiffs crave leave to refer) dated the 1st October, 1901, the right of erecting and maintaining a wharf in position of the said now wharf was demised to the plain- tiffs. The said Crown lease was for a period of 28 years from the 1st January, 1900, and is still in force. Prior to the execut'ou of the said Crown lease the plaintiffs in or about the month of December, 1899, entered into an agreement therefore with the Government and the said agreement continued in force till the execution of the said Grown lease. (5) In or about the month of October, 1911. and subse. quently to the commencement of the said Crown lease and without notice fo or permission from the plaintiff, the Government erected a matshed over the sea against the eastern side of the said new wharf. (6) 'l he said matshed has since been used by the opium-farmer for the purpose of indiscriminately searching passengers arriv. ing from Canton and Macao by the plaintiffs' vessels, and on the 23rd January, 1902, the plaintifs received a letter from the Govern. ment informing them hat the said matshed had been erected for the purpose of the opium- farmer's search of said passengers (7) The said matahed prevents (the access of vessels to part of the said new wharf, is a serious obstruction to the plainting' use thereof, endan gers their property, and is generally injurious'
to v st in the plaintiff the wharf therein referred to or to vest in them the sole right to erect wharves in front of Marine Lot 22 or of any part of such lot, for the term of yar iu the leases specified or for any term whatever. The defendant stated that the wharf in paragraph 2 of the amended statement of claim was erected on Crown land and wis erected and maintained with the leave and licence of the Government of Hongkong and could not lawfully have been erected or maintained without such leave or licence and was not vested in the said Choy A Chan or in the plaintiffs or in any other person for any term whatever. The defendant denial that Chey A Chan at the time of the granting of the two successive leases had a right of access to the sea opposite Marine Lot 22 With reference to paragraph 3 of the statement of claim the defendant admitted that in the year 19 0 the Government of Hongkong having reclaimed laud from the sea contiguous to Marine Lot 22 it became necess:ry to remove the wharf mentioned in paragraph 2 and that a new wharf was subsequently erected by the plaintiffs in front of the reclamation; but the defendant denied that such new wharf was erected by the plaintiffs under the terms of the lease of 1st May, 1884, and stated it was erected and now stands on the Crown land and wes erected by the plaintiffs with the leave and licence of the Government of Hongkong, and was until the granting of the Crown lease maintained with such leave and licence and cou'd not lawfully, until the granting of the lease, have been erected or maintained without such leave or licence. The defendant admitted the making of the indenture.f Crown lease in paragraph 4 but craved leave to refer to it for the terms thereof. The defendant denied that plaintiffs entered into any agreement with the Government whether as alleged io the latter part of paragraph 4 of the s'atement of claim and referr d to in paragraph 7, or otherwise, With referencs to paragraph 5, defendant denied that the matshed referred to was erected subsequent to the granting of the Crown lease and stated that it was erected and ia use at the time the lease was granted. Defendant admitted the erection in July, 1902, of a matshed in substitution of the original matshed which was destroyed by a typhoon in July, 1902, as alleged in para-
80
|
(August 15, 1903. graph 9, and also admitted the use of the mat- shed as therein alleged. In fürther answer to the allegation contained in paragraph 7 of the claim the defendaut denied that either the original or substituted matshed mentioned prevented or prevents the access of rossule to the new wharf; denied that either of such matsheds was or is in auy degree obstructive to plaintiffs' use of such wharf, and denied that either of snob mitsheds endangered or endangers their property or was or is in any way injurious to them. The defendant denied that there had been any breach by the Government of the Crown lease, dated 1st October, 19 '1, and stated that the searching of passengers complained of by the plaintiffs was authorised by law and was in accordance with the provisions of section 29 of an Ordinaue of the Legislativa Council of this Colony entitled The Prepared Opium Ordinance 1891. For a further defeucs to the plaintiffs' claim the defendant stated that the sime was bad in law on th ground that the acts, fac's, mattʼrs and things the ein alleged did not disclose any cause of motion on the part of the plaintiffs against the defendant.
The Attorney-General addressed his Lord. ship on the question of law-Assuming that the acts, facts, things and matters alleged in the statement of claim are proved, do they. constitute a cause of action by the plaintiffs against the defendant ?
The Court adjourned.
Wednesday, 12th August.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE IS HONOUR SIR WILLIAM M.
GOODMAN (Chief Justice), i
HANG FUNG KUNG 8ZE v. TANG KUW. The bearing was continued in this action in which plaintiff had saed Tang Kow for the re- covery of $379.2:, being principal and interest due on a promissory note, and judgment e itered for the plaintiff but execution stayed and leave given to the defendant to bring in a counter- claim. Defendant then claimed $6,089.30 and $137 money paid, bat when his counter-olaim 03010 oa for hearing an adjournment was
allow male
amə idments to be made in the counter-claim and the defence. The case arose out of the charter by the defeudant from the plaintiffs of the lorch. Shun Wi Tsung to go to Mindoro in the Philippine Islands and bring back a cargo of damaged goods ex the wrecked steamer Fatani Maru, on which voyage the lorcha was wrecked and her salvage gear
lost.
to
Mr. M. W. Slade, barrister-at-la v (instructed by Mr. C, E. H. Beavis of Messrs. Wilkinson
Grist, solicitors). appeared for. defendaut Tang Kow, and the plaintiffs were represented by Mr. T. Morg n Phillips, Larrister-at-law (instructed by Mr. John Hays of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes & Master, solicitors).
IN 8 MMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE).
ACTION AG INST THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL.
His Lordship heard further arguments on the issue of law in the case of the Hongkong, Canton and aud Macao Steam-bost Co., Ld., against the Attorney-General.
The Osaka branch of the Nippon Yusen Kaisha, says the Kobe Chronicle, has obtained a contract from the Osaka Military Arsenal authorities for the transport of heavy guns and accessories for the forts a Keelung and the Pescadores. The guus have been shipped by the Niigata Maru.
The Ostasiatische Lloyd has a Berlin tel gram of the 25th ult, which says:-The Silver Com- mittee assembled here has passed a resolution in regard to an unity of the Chinese coin. It is therein stated that it would be desirable to make silver coins legal tender in China and necessary that the exchange between silver and gold should be fixed. The American and Mexican committees are much satisfied with the recep.* tion which they have had in Berlin.
-
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.