Shanghai, 3rd June, 1884.
BeforeSir Ricuarp'T. Rewnte, Chief Justice, W. Saowvers v. F. H. Bent.
The hoaring of this case was resumed from the 27th May.
The Plaintiff, who is the leaseholder of certain promises facing the Soochow Creole, claims that the foreshore in front of his premial included in the demise to him, and that he has also acquired by long usage a right to use this foreshore and n Tanding place; and he prays that the defendant, who is the registered owner of the property, may be ordered to remove the piling structions whi has placed upon n front of th foreshore and premises, to plaintiff Ta. 100 for dame; peared for the plainti ud Mr. it. E. Wainewright for the defendant, Mr. Dowbaut anid in opening the case te ho had only mi cases bearing upon tone point. Thi ral cozes upon ite of cate giving merely the titles and the references.
lis Loupsute case upon wi yuld be mentioned in advance.
practice was introduced by Mr. Robinson, but he had never heard of it being done anywhere except in thie Court. wotlk Dowpatt said he was only follow: in this way were of no interest to te practice that prevailed here RDSHIF said cases mentioned
i be was not going to rend it was only s matter between counsel, and Mr. Dowdall might xs well give Mr. Wainewright " list of the cases which he proposed to cite, This absurd praction had grown up in this Court, and he could never see the reason of it, He believed it was the invention of Me. Robinsov, who used to say that cases were sprang upon him and that he was entitled to know what cases wore to be relied on by the counsel fur plaintiff. So far as the Court was con-corned, unless thi and tle passages read tion pointed out, the Court hi do with them. Tt was not to that counsel was to tell the signa th iderable length, 'Mr. Watnzwniour did sure that the At home, he hi defence always had' an opportunity of knowing what points of law his opponent was gels to rely upon. They were mentioned in the opening.
in which he rehoe. He does not merely give passages and otates the points of law on, His Lonpsur?—Yes, butthecouneel reads
a hat of the cases.
Mr. Warnewatont—Quite so, my Lord.
His Loupsmir -It is the duty of consol in opening & care where points of law are involved. 1 thi briefly and enecinctly, reading the passages Me. Dowbazt then handed to Mr. Waine-which he intends to rely.
wright a list of the cases which he intended to cite in his reply.
Mr. Warszwaronr then proceeded to open the defendant's case. He said—Msy it please your Lordship, I take it that as regardsthedefendan incumbent 1 his open shall have th opportunity of dealing wil Thave taken the evidence, is that the plaintiff by the lease is not entitled to any rover theforealorein dispute, not and could not acquire Tehall comment, of course, upon the terms as against his landlord, of the lease, and I shall give evidence of what was the intention at any rate of the lessor when the lease was granted, Mr. Saunders has stated certain things bout i imtions for his lense—thnt is, the because the louse of 1882 is of it, The lease of 1876 the premises, and Mr, Saunders ven some evidence of what -he intended should he included. 1 shall give evidence that the other parties to the lease had no such intentions whatever they never dreamt that Mr. Saunders had. any such idea in his hend until this question of bunding came up a few months ago, and thin claim was made.
is Loxpsair—There comes the que tiou of law, us to how far evidence of inion is admisenble to contradict the terms of the lea:
WarwewriGat—On that point 1 that where the of the deed and unambiguous, you cannot tot the deed to find the intenvf the parti The deed ay long us there the deed you cannot travel out He then quoted Woodfall's Land-Jard nnd Tenant, 12th od., p. 125; and Addison on Contracts, 7th ed., pp. 164-166. He would contend that there was no am-Dignity whatever in the louse. The petition of the plaintiff said that By another dyed of lease, dated the gth of August, 1876, made between Howell Wills of the one part and the plaintiff of the other part, the same premises were by a description referring to the 1 posses plaintiff demised tain, es" That, he said, was a misstatement of fact and violation of the language of the leave altogether, the lease of 1876 wns practically clear and tuambignous in ite language, and the were described thus All that piece or plot of lund situated at the Junction of the Hwang-poo and Soward Hondo, and numbered 2, 3 and ¢ on the Lunicipal Plan of the' Hongkew Settle-of Shanghai, to; th the dwell house and ti onses pertaining eto, erected upon ud fronting to th the whole prom vectipancy or unch hho latter phrase, or under his had beau explained by the fact that previous to 1876 the plaintiff occupied vee of garden-yround wh len The deed of 1876 contained no ambiguity whatever, and although Mr. Saunders might now find it convenient to say that ho always intended that the louse uld include the foreshore, the louse did notincludetheforesiore, and the other party be the low yer dreamt that the lease and Mr. Saundere's recollect tion could not overnle the other side; as the intention to effect a deed must be the intention of both parties, Mr. Bell, who was the lessor ut the time, nud Mr, Maclean, who made the lease, would tell the Court that they lad no iven that they were including any foreshore, and never dreamt of any such thing. Ho admitted that the first lease described the property as bounded by the bund and river," whatever. that might mean. The word " bund" was
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.