These were proceedings between Ng Chi-kiu, Ng Pak-wan, Ng Heung-lon, Riy Ci an, and Riy Chung-man, plaintiffs, against from Shaw Wilkinson and the China Land and Finance Ca., Ltd., and George Brown (a8 British land officer). Two. summons were taken out, the first on 9th March and the second on the 10th. Tu the float, taken out by the late Mr. Wainewright aa counsel for the defendant H. S. Wilkinson, the er was (1) that the plaintiff's petition, led on Qnd March, 1892, be set aside for irregularity, with costs to be taxed and paid by" plaintiffs to defendant, on the ground that the plaintiffs are foreigners und did not first Ble in the court their consent to. its jurisdiction, as required by the China and Japan Order in Council; (2) that the 13th and 14th paragraphs of the petition be struck cut on the ground that they had been added without leave of the court; and that (3) in the meantime all proceedings in the suit be stayed. The second summons, taken out by Mr. Wilkinson as counsel for the China Land and Finance Company, contained the same requests as the other summons, with the addition of n prayer (1) that Ng Wu sun, named in the petition, be joined as a necessary party or that the petition be ded by omitting. all claim on the part sun, and that unless such joinder went be wade within " ime to be fixed by the Court, the petition be dismissed; (2) that the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and Gth paragraphs of the petition be struck ended by the plaintiffs og tending to embarrass the fair trial of the suit, or that in the alternative the plaintifis be mend these paragraphs as not lent information to enable the defendants revsouably to understand the particulars of the claim against them, Mr. Drummond appeared for the tiff, Mr. Dowdall for the defendant will on, and Mr. H. S, Wilkinson for the China Land and Finance Ca. The not appear the various steps already taken in the suit before the Court, and asking whether the petition was dered as original or amended Amended) proceeded to argue that a8 the petition was framed by the five plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and Riy Wan-sun, he ought to have been made 0 plainti He wns not in w posit ald be bound in any way by the decision of the Court or which would enable the defendants to have against hin any of the ities which they might claim.
Me. Drummond said that in the interests of all partis he was prepared to make certain" verbal 18 which would wit Ng Wai The lew counsel then stated the alterations to which he was willing to agree.
Mr. Wikiuson said that practically Mr. Drummond acceded to the applica Mr. Drummond said he puo in Ng Wun-san's nate because it could not be helped at the time, in order to have the story told. He tiff, because me sent, and he could nit, because he was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. The alterations were material to his (Mr. Drummond's) case, and he had to meet Mr. Wilkinson in that the e amended by omitti all claim on the part of Ng Wun-suu Mr. Wilkinson then proceeded to argue the next question set out in the summons, i.e., thnt the four paragraphs named should be struck out of the petition as tending to embarrass the fair (rial of the suit, and not giving sufficient information, He said the Srd paragraph was open to objection as containing " statement that the plaintifis are the owners, If that was to be treated separate allegation of their claim, it was inadmissible. The learned counsel quoted on this point the case ut Phillips v. Phillips (4..Q.18., 127).
His Lordship—Paragraph 3 may be considered a mere summary.
Mr. Drummond—It is a statement lead-
ship. ing up to the detailed statement of owner-
Afrersomefurther argument it -was agreed that the paragraph should read as follows "Phe plaintiffs claim that they, together with Ng Wan-sun, age the sale owners, on. the- grounds hereinafter set forth, of the Mr. Wilkinson then raised the question whether the amendments to the other paragraphs were. sullicient. The learned counsel rexd the paragraphs in question, which showed that the plaintiffs are the descendants of Howqua, the famous Cantonese merchant, who died in 1843 and who left a large sum of money in the hands of the then firm of Russell & Ca, in trust for his family and descendants according to Chinese law, The lands in dispute in the present suit were purchased with part of (hat sum of money and were registered in the name of Jul Murray Forbes, a partner in the firm of Russell Ca, Howqua left seven sons, all of whom are now dead, The second son during the life of Howqua was adopted by an uncle and therefore censed te have aig intereat in the property lof by Howqua. Riy Wai sun was the eldest surviving descendant of the: fifth son of Howquy, and the plaintiffs were the descendants of the first, third, fourth, sixth and seventh sons, The plaintiffs claimed that their rights were governed by the Jaw of China (1) because their ancestor Howqua was " Chinese sub Jeet; (2) because, his descendants are all Chinese subjects; und (8) because thy pro-porties, the subject of the present suit, wre situated within the Empire of China; and according to the law of China, upon the death of a Chinese subject his property descends to his. sur sons, except in cinl cases which did not apply in th insiw.ce, and to their and is to be kept in trust until act ion, without limitation of time, peti thorstated that John Murray Forbes had neted for many years us trustee for Honqun's defendants, and that he resides in New York. It had been the custom 1 connection with this property for ne of the descendants to be xppuinted to act as manager of the property, and to receive from the trustee by quarterly payment the monies derived from the trust. Mr. Wilkinson went to argue that under Phillips v. Philli was necessary that the plaint get out any documents on which they re-Vie. "Besides, they did wot explain when or by whom or under what circumstances the property was purchased. It w: material uxiter whether it was pur yew or two age or in 1843, as the question of limitation might ative and there. was no allegation to attach El law to the facts of the ease. The purchase might have been made in many ways nid at any time between 1843 and now 5 and if th y was diverted from the fund twenty or thirty years ago, he would be in a position to argue that the plaintiffs were barred, and that they ought te show the time at which they claimed the money was taken out, of the fund and applied to the purely ree with you. which they to prove; and it ix for you tu make the allegation, if it is necessary case, to show that the purchase at a particular time, I do not think it would be of any use to argue that any further.
Mr. Wilkinson—Then they ought to sot out all the documents upon which they ip—Perhaps they have no documents upon which they rely.
Mr. Wilkinson—That is probably the case; but then there is the question whether John Murray Forbes has been acting as trustee under, Chinese law or any other law. I want te know what is the allegation, Mr. Drummond—He is bound by Chinese Jaw throughout as regards this property, butit is impossible to say that he is not bound asia trustee by some other law.
His Lordsbip—What you say is that he ought we deal with the property in sugh way as Chinese law requires,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.