1
1
1!
262
to inform you that, ro far as this Government is aware, there is no truth in the rumours to which you refer.
2.- You are at liberty to publish, this letter, so that the public may know the truth instead of being misled by disturbing rumours, which are evidently the creations of those who delight | to indulge in an imaginary anticipation of events that are not even likely to occur.-I have the honour to be, Gentlemen, Your most obedient servant,
(Signed) J. H. ST· WART LOCKHART
Messrs. Lavers & Clark
Commissioner
The Weihaiwei correspondent of our coutem porary writes as follows on the same subject :-
A rumour has reached us from Shanghai that summer visitors will not be allowed here this season! The statement is so obviously fa'xo that it scarcely merits contradiction; but there ara timid people who are prepared to accept the wildest assertions; and think, that since this health resort happens to be within a hundred miles of Port Arthur, it may not be safe 10 a me here. Such people appear to ignore two very plain facts: (1) Great Britain is not at war, nor likely to be. (2) Iu common with every other British possession, this colony is under the protection of the most powerful nary in existence.
SUPREME COURT.
Saturday, 26th March.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEго Н18 HONOUR SIR WILLIAM H. GOODMAN (CHIEF JUSTICE).
CHAN UT-CHIU AND PUN KAN SHAN V. CHU LEE AND CHU PING.
His Lordship delivered judgment in the above
case.
Hon. H. E. Pollock, K.C., and Mr. E. H. Sharp, K.C. (instructed by Mr. R. Harding of Messrs. Ewens and Harston, solicitors), appeared for the plaintiffs; and Mr. M. W. Slade, barrister-at-law, (instructed by Mr. H. J. Gedge, of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master, solicitors), appeared for the defendants, case was argued on 14th and 15th March.
The
|
His Lordship in delivering judgment said- This is an action brought by the plaintiffs to determine the respective rights of themselves and the defendants, with regard to a certain portion of the Praya Reclamation which is situated in front of Marine Lot 53 (A.) The plaintiffs ask that it should be declared by this Court that they are entitled to the area of reclaimed land marked red on the plan annexed to certain Articles of Agreement between one Chu Chuen and Mr. Bruce Shepherd, on behalf of the Governor of Hongkong, dated 5th October 1889; that is to say to such proportion (from front to back) of the whole of the Reclamation to Marine Lot 53 (A), as the frontage of the plaintiff's property, Sections B and D of the said Lot upon the old Praya, bears to the whole frontage of Marius Lot 53 (A) upon the said roadway. The defendants, who are sued as the executors of one Chu Chuen, deceased, deny, in paragraph 5 of their defence, that the plaintiffs are entitled, upon the true construction of the Praya Reclamation Ordinauce, 1889, to part of the Reclamation and they plead that they (the defendants) are in possession of such reclaimed land. When originally Marine Lots were first granted they had an actual sea frontage, but Marine Lot 53 (A) which, I presume, occupied the site of part of one of the original Marine Lots, had its seaward frontage on the old Praya, a road 50 feet wide running along between the houses and the sea or waters of the harbour. Marine Lot 53 (A) appears to have been originally denised by the Crown, in April, 1859, to one loao Bapista Gomes for a term of 984 years and when so demised was not bounded by the sea, but by the old Praya. The boundaries are described as the Praya on the north, Queen's Road on the south, Marine Lot 18 on the west, and "a close registered in the Land Office as Marine Lot 53 (being the centre line of a private party lane, fifteen feet wide)" on the east. In course of time the Crown Lessee assigned various sections of this Lot to others. In 1881 Yiu Chow became assignee of
any
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
་་
1
•
|
|
|
|
|
[April 4, 1904.
practice has always been that the proportion of reclamation allotted to holders of Marine Lots fronting the Praya Roadway along, the line of the reclamation, or, where any such Marine Lot has been split up into Sections, some being back Sections and others fronting the said Prays Roadway, then the proportion of reclamation allotted to the respective owners of such frontage Sections has been determined by the respective lengths of such frontages along the Praya Roadway L., the extent of the line of frontage. Before dealing with the specific facts of this case, it may be well to point out that Section 6 of the Ordinance is very sweeping. The intended reclamation is declared to be the property of the Crown and, subject to the provisions of the Ordinance, the Governor has conferred upon him full power to deal with it in the same way as he can deal with other Crown lands.. The words of the section are as follows :---
**
6. All the land and foreshore and bed of
the sea to be reclaimed under this ordinance, and all the land occupied by the present Praya roadway, and wall along the line of the intended reclamation, is hereby declared to be absolutely the property of the Queen. free from any restriction whatever, and the Governor shall have power, subject to the provisions of this ordinance, to deal with the same and to disposs of the same for building or any other purpose in the same way and to as full an extent, as in the case of other Crown Lands; and all pro- party, estate, rights or supposed rights and easements or supposed easements of any persons or class of persons, whether Crown leaseholders or licensees or otherwise, to the user or pos- session or occupation of, in, over or in any way in relation to such land, foreshore, bed of the søn, embankment, reclamation, or praya road-way and wall.or in relation to any wharf. landing place, pier, or other place, situate thereupon, are hereby declared to be absolutely extinguished and determined.”
It seems clear, therefore, that all claims except those provided for by the Ordinance are ex- tinguished. What claims then does the Ordin- ance provide for ?
Sections B. and D. In 1882 Chu Chuen became assignee of Section A. In 1886 Chu Chuen also became assignee of a Section called the remaining portion "and Mr. M. J. Stephens at some date, which was not stated, but prior to 1889, became assignee of Section C. The Praya Reclamation Ordinance. No. 16 of 1889, was passed on 10th May, 1889, and. at that date, the various Sections of Marine Lot 53 (A) were held as follows : --Section B & D were held by one Yiu Chow. Section C was held by Mr. M. J. Stephens. Section A and that part called the remaining portion" of Marine Lot 53 (A) were held by one Cha❘ Chuen. The Marine Lot, taken as a whole, | extended, as]I have stated, from Queen's Road to the old Praya, now known as Des Vœux Road. | Section C fronted the Queen's Road, Sections B and D frouted the old Praya. Section A was bounded on the north by Sections B and D and so did not frout the old Praya at all. although by the deed of assignment, 31st July 1882, Chu Chuen the purchaser, had granted to Bim free and nuiutørrupted right of ingress, egress and regress in, to, over and upon and way and user of the Remaining portion coloured blue on the plan. The Remaining portion" was a Section which included the laud between Section A and the Queen's Road (except Section C) and the long narrow strip | of land, constituting one half of the narrow private lane, extending from Queen's Road to the Praya, and thus had a frontage on the Praya. At the date
this action, the plaintiff's held B and D, formerly held by their predecessor in title. Yiu Chow. who died in 1893; and the defendants held Section A and “the remaining portion of Marine Lot 53 (A), by devolution of the property from Chu Chuen, who died in 1898. The whole of the frontage, therefore, on the_old_Praya, of Marine Lot 53A was taken
up by Sections Band and the remaining portion." Assuming that rights to the reclamation to he made under the Praya Reclamation Or dinance. 1889, were only given by that Or- dinanes to frontagers, ie,, to persons whose Lots (if they held the whole lot) or whose Sections of those Lots (if the Lots were broken up) frouted follows: whereas the Crown lessees or their on the old Praya, it is clear that the plaintiffs' assigns registered in the Land Registry Office at the date of the commencement of this Ordin- predecessor in title, Yiu Chow, was entitled to come in under that Ordinance as frontager, in ance in respect of the lots of land or sections respect of Sections B and D), and that the | thereof fronting the Praya Roadway along the defendant's predecessor in title. Chu Chuen, | line of the proposed Reclamation (which per was entitled to come in, as a frontager in respect sons with their executors, administrators aud
the remaining portion. of
It is also assigns, except where repugnant to the context thak, on lear
that assumption,
are hereinafter referred to as lessees) or the! holders of Sections Cund A were not entitled majority of them, have already declared or to come in under the Ordinance and claim any signified their readiness to contribute towards of the reclamation. When the the cost to be incurred for and in connection part
further plan specified in sub- with the works authorised by this Ordinance, section (1) of Section 7 of the Praya Reclama provided the Governor will grant to them, tion Ordinance and the Schedule (containing & respectively. Crown Leases of such equitable List of the lessees) annexed to the plan, proportion of the proposed reclamation as may are referred to, it appears that Yiu Chow is be available, having regard to public require entered as registered Crown Leesee of Sections ments in respect of the roads and streets to be B and D), and Chu Chuen as registered Crown made on the land when reclaimed and in the lessee of the remaining portion" of Marine case of each lessen having regard to the claims Lot 53 (A). The Schedule which was published of other lessees," &c., &c. in the Gazette and contained in Government Notification No. 301, dated 6th July 1889. shows that the length of Yin Chow's frontage was 41 feet 6 inches in respect of Sections B and D while Chu Chuen's frontage in respect of remaining portion" was 10 feet 9 inches. The proposed reclamation assignable to lessees was entered us 5853 square feet for
This throws light on the words Such Yin Chow and 1526 sq. ft. for Chu Chuen, the
*estimated cost of making the reclamation" | equitable proportion of the proposed reclamation to was $2.18 square foot. and the respective as may lo available having regard. estimated amounts of contribution" were: the claims of other lessees." The other lessees Yin Chow. $12.759, and Chu Chuen. $3,326, whose claims are to be considered are 'frontagers' No provision was mude by the plan and not buck Section holders. In the case of be given to any but frontagers, so the holder of
Marine Lot 53 (A) there were 3 Sections front- schedule for any portion of the reclamation to Section C. a buck Section, is not mentioned in the schedule, nor is Section A referred to at all. This system of allowing only frontagers to come in was the system regularly followed as being in accordance with the Ordinance. I am not now speaking of any special case where there may have been some special agreement or contract between the frontager and some other person.
area of
the
the
If the Ordinance is carefully read and
|
|
Section 7 deals with these. It commences as
for
It will conduce to clearness if I here point out that the meaning of the word "lessees the purposes of this Section is defined by the first few lines of the Section as the Crown Lessee or assignee not of a back Section, but of a lot fronting the old Praya or (if the lot is divided into Sections) of a Section thereof fronting the old Praya.
ing the Praya and the proportion of the re- clamation allotted in respect of each of these Sectious was proportioned to their respective frontages, ie., the frontages of Sections Band D and of the remaining portion." on the Praya Roudway.
As regards the land and the strip fronting on the Praya, known as "the remaining portion' of Marine Lot 53 (A) Chu Chuen entered into Articles of Agreement. He agreed by such considered it will he found that the claims of articles to pay certain contributions, which
I holders of back sections of Marine Lots to be entitled to any part of the reclamation are not recognised by it at all. It seems too that the
understand liave been duly paid, and became entitled (subject to payment of any extra con- tributions which might become payable under
}
Page 10Page 11
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.