To the Editor of the "Norra-Caiva Datty News,"
Sm,—Tho two cases that have been brought by the Municipal Council in B.M. Civil Summary Court against subjects for non-compliance with the pro-ions of Article VII of the Land Regulations, appear to ignore altogether the Consular responsibility under the Land Regulations.
Article VII states that when land is rented, stones having the number of the lot distinctly cut thereon, in English and Chinese, must be placed to define the boundaries thereof, under the supervision of the Consul applying for the land, and of the Chinese Local Authoriti Thoro is nothing in the Regulation to imply that a landronter is to fix boundary stones at his or her own will and pleasure. The wording of this Article is most emphatic, the boundary stones "must" be placed to define the boundaries thereof, under the supervision of the Consul applying for the land, etc. Further on in the Article, the procedure is laid down, and the' clause reads that: "A time will be named for the boundary stones to be fixed in the presence of an officer deputed by the Consul, of the Tepaou of the district, and of the Chinese proprietors and the renter." If a reasonable construction is placed on this clause, there is no doubt that the Consul is the proper authority to name a time when the boundary stones are to be fixed. This was the old custom, but like a good many old customs, that entail a little trouble, has been allowed to fall into desuetude.
The Article further particularises that the boundary stones ate to be fixed "in such manner that they do not interfere with the lines of road, or the boundaries any other way give cause for liti.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.