December 3, 1904.]
or
com-
ALLEGED LIMEWASHING INJUSTICES. Mr. Ramishn in a letter to the Secretary asked: Is Inspector Lyons or any other prosecuting senior inspector empowered to take out a summons against an offender, re 1 supposed, without firt verifying the plaint of one of his subordinate officers? If so, who has given this authority? If I remember correctly, instructions to the senior inspectors, approved by the Board last year, require them to verify all complaints made by their subordinates before taking action.'
The letter was in connection with summonses is respect of No. 11, Shepherd Street, Nos. 1 and 3, School Street, and House No. 15, facing the Polo Ground. Mr. Rumjahn wrote:- I think the Board should be informed whether or not it was a fact that the magist ate dis- charged the defend ut (in the case r-lating to No. 11, Sheph rd Street) on Inspector Lyons telling the B-nch that the premises were limewashed after the summons was taken out,
true.
as understood by the defendant. As a matter of fact, if such statement were made it was not
reply The Secretary in
wrote: No. 11, Shepherd St eet, was found after the
taken
to out not
be &
summons
W&S
tenement house, so the case against the owner was withdrawn." Other houses were occupied by two families. "I think the Board may be under a misapprehension with regard to the people in Tai ilang. Many of the houses are in the occupatio.rof ons man, but they take in lodgers. As to the cleanliness mentioned by Mr. Brewin, I have not noticed it personally, and I should like to know whether he visited the village after Oct ber 13th, as the whole was cleansed under the direction of Inspector L. E. Bratt between October 10th and 13th."
The Hon. A. W Brewin minuted-Presum- ably the owner of No. 11, Shepherd Street, was wrongly fined in the spring of this year. Houses Nos. 1 and 3. School Street, and Nos. 1 and 15, facing the Polo Ground, are not in my opinion tenement houses. I was these houses particularly I referred to in remarking on the cleanliness o: the houses in Tai Hang. If the M.OH is not satisfied with the cleanliness of these houses be is hard to satisfy. They were r. ally clean and evilently kept regularly clean.
was
The PRESIDENT said it was hard to say what term the Chiuese applied to their family houses. The M.O.H. understood that the term applied to all te members of a family, up to five generations If that were the case the bye-law as to limewashing required amending, especially when applied to places like Kowloon City. One of the tenement houses mentioned was kept by
two families.
Dr BARNETT explained that in this house, or houses would be more correct, cows were kept down below, while one family oscup ed the floors of the two houses up above.
On the 30th
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE RÈPORT.
The motion was carried, and the President appointed Messrs Pollock, Rumjahn and Brewin to enquire into the matter.
VERANDAHS.
Regarding applications to enclose verandahs the PRESIDENT said that if such were granted the Sanitary Boar would have great difficulty in dealing «i h such cases in the future. He proposed flat the applications be refused.
Mr. HEWETT seconded, and it was agreed that they be refuse 1.
MARKET PLANS.
An application for permission to sell fish at No. 10, Wing Fang Lane was refused. On the suggestion of Mr. HEWETT it was agreed that each member of te Sanitary Board should be supplied with plans showing the limits; this would consi lerably market facilitate matters when considering these applications.
week
RATS.
During the
ended the 28th inst. including seven which 528 ʻrats,
were plague infected, were caught at Hongkong; and 354, including seven infected, at Kowloon.
LIMEWASHING.
The limewashing return for the fortnight ended on the 22nd inst. shows that work in this direction has been pushed forward. In the eastern district, 2,936 houses were limewashed; central, 2,937 houses; and western. 318 houses.
MORTALITY STATISTICS.
The following mortality statistics are given at the rate per thousand per annum :—
W. en ed. Cor. W.
12th inst.
British & Foreign Civilians (hinese and population Chiuese boat population
1903.
25.7
36.1
152
13.8
11,3
11.0
SUPREME COURT.
Monday, 28th November.
IN APPELL TE JURISDICTION.
BEFORE THEIR HONOURS SIR H. S. BERKELEY
(CHIEF JUSTICE), AND T. SERCOMBE
SMITH (PUISNE JUDGE.)
TANG TSZ U v. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL.
|
413
His Lordship—You must show us where it in material before we accept that. We think you. had better deal with the whole question, an | we will see if we are entitled to give you leave to bring further evidence.
Mr. Slade-I understand, my Lord, that you will not take into consideration the last affidavit.
The Hon. E. H. Sharp-I will not argde då this ffid vit; I am not vo ng to press it.
/
His Lordship-We must hear reasons why you should ge more time to give further evi- dence Twelve months have elapsed since your case came on before the Land Court, All thin sould have been in your possession to lay before the Land Court.
Mr. S ade replied that they had been pressed for time. Iran lat ons took a long time, and many doou ents not put in during the hearing had been translated. Mr. Slade proceeded to deal with the merits of the aplication.
=2
His Lordship said that the application should have been made at the Land Court,
Mr. Slade said that the document in question was in the safe keeping of the provincial treasurer of Canton. They could not get the original document out of the yamen, but would bring an official to certify the copy. As a matter of fact, his learned friend had not denied that a copy of this document was in the possessio of the Crown. Mr. Sade further said that the translations put in by the other si le were not good ones; he could bring evidence to prove it.
!"
His Lordship said that the Court was not bound to accept evidence, but the Court having evidence before it was at liberty to draw inferences on these ficts. Why rely on the consuls in China? Justice Sercombe Smith had a knowledg⋅ of Chinese.
Mr. Slade did not think that Mr. Sercombe Smith would disdain such translations which he could produce.
His Lordship said that the land belonged to the 'rown If the appellant declared that he ourht to have the land it was for him to get title deeds from the Government. If the Go. vernment reconises the claim it was bound by conscience to give title deeds or 'com. pensation. If he could prove that he ought to have a title granted the Government would give him one, or compensation. When the A motion at the instance of ang Tsz U in case had come before the Land Court, however, it was decided hat he had no right to a title. the case of lang Tsz U against the Attorney- General came under consideration. The appli- The appellant said the Crown ought to grant cation was in respect of land claims in the New them a title. If the court took that view the erritorios, claim C. A. Surrey district No. 4. Gorernment, by the ordinance, must take that The Land Court found that under the circumview or give compensation. This claim, how- stances, the appellant, not having reclaimed certain land, tlie Chinese Government could have cancelled the grant; and the British Government now were therefore entitled to do so. Tang Tsz U recently obtained leave to adduce further evidence, and the Crown brought
other evidence in answer to this.
the case was
to have come on for hearing o Thursday last, but was postponed on account of an application The Crown put in a paper from the Crown. yesterday morning, which Jang Tsz U desired leave to answer, so applied for adjournment.
Mr. M. W. Slade. instructed by Mr. J. Harston, appeared for the appellant; Hon. E. H. Sharp, K.C. (Attorney-General) ad Mr. H. E. Follock, K.C., instructe by Mr B. L. Bowley (Crown Solicitor), for the Crown.
Mr. RUMJAHN said he cou'd only come to the conclusion that the M.O.H. in believing that these were kept by more than one family house must be holding a brief in defence of one of the officers who had taken legal actions against a man without enquiring into the case, At the last me-ting he drew attention to tenement houses. Sinc, then Dr. Barnett had again been to t e village, and could not come to the conclusion that these houses were occupied by more than o e family The action taken against these people was wholly unjustified and illegal. March he drew attention to the irregularities in a case against the Wharf and Godown Com- pany, and then hoped that indiscriminate prosecutions would be put a stop t. Since that case cropped up many irregul ities had taken place, and people had been hauled up before the police magistrate and wrongly convicted. tlement to answer this affidavit. One of the moved that a committes be appointed to enquire men we require in this matter is in Canton. into t is matter, and thereby put a stop to
Your Lordship knows that it takes time; there these exasperations once an i for all
is always delay. I may say the other side have had a week, and we only ask for the same thing. His Lordship - What you said was that a viceroy or proviucial treasurer had written a letter to some consul, setting out his views. Why did not you give notice to produce the document if If he wrote a letter in answer they have got it?
The PRESIDENT-What matter? Mr. RUMJAHN-That relating to Tai Hang Village.
Mr. POLLOCK seconded the motion, but he did not endorse all Mr. Rumjahn's remarks. If there had been wrong he thought it had been done in good faith, though Mr Rumjahn viewed it in the opposite way. It would een on the face of things that some wrong had been committed, so it would be only right to appoint
■ committee to look into the matter,
ever, was not. recornised by the Chinese Government, and need not now be recognised by the present Government unless it liked.
Mr. Slade said that if the Government withheld equitable title deeds they could sue the Government. The claim was allowed by the Land Court on condition that they were not bound by it.
His Lordship held that the land belonged to the Crown, which had the same rights as were previously held by the Chinese Government. Why did they not take occasion to enforce their equitable rights? Mr. Gomperts, who had given his decision in the Land Court, had stated his reasons.
Mr. Slade The land is very valuable and that is why the Government wants it.
Mr. Slade- have to ask for an adjournment. Tho Hon. E. H. Sharp said it was an applica- The cabe was originally fixed for Thursday, and tion for leave to call further evidence in reply. then adjourned till Friday. It was adjourned It was Lot a case for evidence in reply; this again till this morning by request of my dearned had already been allowed. At the Land Court friend. This morning an affidavit was filed in they had put in evidence, and the Crown put in opposition to the motion, setting out facts which evidence to answer. This was a thorough hear- it is imperative for us to answer. I ask Youring, lasting over a period of five months. Later to let, us have 80 adjourn an application was made to put in further evi- Lordships
dence in reply to the Crown case, and this was granted on the condition that the Crown should have the opportunity to put in further evidence. And now the appellant wanted to put in further evidence which, if allowed, would be unheard of. Mr. Sharp opposed the motion on the ground that it was inadmissible.
|
it only shows that if you had taken the trouble you could have gotne also. I am not sure that we will let you give any more evidence.
Mr. Slade -This point is material or not material.
After further remarks by Mr. Sharp, Mr side quoted legal Pollock on the sane authorities.
His Lordship the Chief Justice said We think the application should be refused. ~ We think the motion for leave to adduce further evidence in this case should be dist No precedent has been adduced to this
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.