Court over an Alleged £ncroachment A piece of land in Paoshan, registered in the U. (consulate, was the subject of an actin. heard in H. M. Supreme Court on Tuesday before his Honour Judge Grain. The plaintiff was Mr. F. J. Schuhl, (suing as trustee for Shun Kwan-ding) and the defendant was Zay Dong-kyl, against whom Tls. 5,000 damages w re claimed.
According to the statement of claim, since August, 1912, Mr. Schuh] held the land (US. lot 219) under a perpetual lose from the Chinese Republic and in trust for plaintiff. Defendant, it is alleged, wrongfully entered upon and occupied part of the iand by tke erection of a buildiar both below and above the surface of the soil, putting up a wall 30 feet high, and causing an encroachment which seriously hindered development of the land.
Mr. Tycho Wing appeared for plaintiff and Mr. M. B. Brown for defendant.
In opening the case for plaintiff, Mr. Wing stated that the piece of land in question ran from south to north on the Paoshaa Road, and was adjoined on its south and west sides by defendant's land. Along the whole of this boundary, Gefendant had erected a wall, 329 ft. in length and 30 ft. high, Its foundations extended on the land ct plaintiff for a distance of 10 inches over its whole length, and at the south end the wait above the soil stood nine inches on and over plaintiff's land, while at other points the encroachment was six inches and 1¢ inches. The wall was the wall some dwelling houses, the bay windows of which jutted over at certain intervals. Plaintiff propos-ey to build some Chinese houses on his land, but the encroachment. made such a difference to the land that it would not be worth his while to build. Plaintiff had not allowed defendant to go on with the encroachment by degrees and then brought this action. He protested from the first moment there was amy sign of encroachment, there being a good deal of correspondence and proceedings in the Mixed Court, and his only remedy was to ask for a mandatory injunction.
Mr. Schuhl gave formal evidence as to his trusteeship, and went on te say that, failing -receipt of replies to his letters protesting against the encroachment; a suit was filed in the Mixed Court, but jurisdiction was declined, defendant being a British subject.
Mr. Gilbert Davies (of Messrs Lavies & Brooke), gave a detailed description of plans, and pointed. out the alleged encroachments.
After further evidence the case was adjourned.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.