Mi. F. Ellis appeared for the plain-Sad MeL. E. P. Jones for defon-
According to the petition of the thintiff, which Mr. Ellis tead, defend-sat was a coolie in the employ of Weds & Ca., Ld. The plaintiff was be legal and beneficial owner of 4 certain piece or parcel of land situs in Burkill Road, Shanghai, and know and registered at H. I. Japanese Vajesty's Consalate-General, Shanghai, The H.C. herald and S. C. & C. Gazette. as lot No. 23. The defendant was living and residing on the lot No. 23, being in occupation of a Chinese dwelling house erected on a portion of the: said piece or parcel of land. The plain tiff had applied to and requested the defendant to remove the said dwelling house snd to give to the plaintiff possession of the said portion of the said piece of land, but the defendant had refused and still refused to do so.
Plaintiff, therefore, prayed the Court to order the defendant to forthwith quit the land, to remove the dwelling house and to give to plaintiff immediate, uninterrupted and undisturbed possession of the portion of the piece of land on which the dwelling house stood.
In his reply defendant admitted that the plaintiff had requested him to remove himself and his house from this land. In farther answer to the plaintiff's petition the defendant said that he resided pon a portion of his family's ancestral property situated on North side of the Barkill Road and had always been so resident. He had never parted with nor sold his interest in the said ancestral property or the documents of title therefore. Other members of defendant's family resided upon and were interested in the said ancestral property, and they likewise had never sold any portion of it or any documents of title relating thereto. The family had from time to time paid land tax upon the property and the family an-castral graves were situated on it. If the title deed referred to in plaintiff's petition covered any portion of this ancestral property it was obtained by the fraud of someone other than defendant or on false documents, and should be cancelled. If the plaintiff had io fact paid money to anyone in respect of the purchase of any portion of this ancestral land (which was not admitted) he had so paid such money to one who had no interest in the property and had no power or authority to sell the same and with notice that the defendant and other members of the family were in occnpation of the property and interests therein. If the plaintiff had s valid title deed for any portion of the said ancestral property (which was not admitted) then he could only retain same as trustee for defendant and other members of defendant's family, subj to whose rights he obtained such' title deed. Defendant, therefore, prayed that the plaintiff's petition be dismissed and Ki that it be declared that the defendant and his family had not parted with and still owned and were entitled to occupy their ancestral property.
Mr. Ellis handed in the foreign title deed to the property and Land Tax receipts from 1903 to 1907. He also pat in plan.
Mr. Jones said that there should be proof that the plan referred to the ground mentioned in the title deed.
In reply to the Assessor Mr. Ellis said that he understood there were now no boundary stones, as they had been taken away by defendant.
The case was adjourned for the Court and the necessary officials to inspect the land.
87
Shanghai, January 7. Before Mr. Woxa (Assistant Magis:
trate) and Dr. Bancuer (American Assessor).
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.