In opening his argument on Wednesday afternoon Mr. Wright declared thatthe Council was empowered to demand land surrender through an agreement, between the foreign Powers and the Chinese government, the Land Regulations providing "the means of procedure, and quoted from the volume—"The Council will at the beginning of each year ete." This, counsel continued, left the Council no alter They must outline the road programme, "I do not think that this Honourable Court or any other Court can overrule their "right to schedule a new road construction," he went on to say, "excepting of course tances of mala fides."
A Hiatus in the Evidence Mr. Wright, argument, declared that had been' produced to show that this was not a public road and the Court must have e on this point if they wished to rule on Referring to an alleged contract, whereby plaintiff said he would remove a fence, should the Council wish to go through, he denied the existence of a contract the letter had been written by friend. He also denied that the il bound itself not to demand tit's relinquishment before the full extension of the Mupai Road.
With reference to plaintitt's tention that Council could not take land for valuation to the lund Commissioner, excepting within one year from the dat sel cited the a House of Lord Murray, wher the learned "Court held that even three or four years Inpse did not constitute a breach of rights.
agreed that the Court might believe the Land Regulations to be loosely drawn, but he hoped snd believed that this body would interpret them as to their intent and thus avoid suggestions never intend.
The Defence Mr. Wright said the contention of the defence was that the petition was mostly made up of prejudices Mr. Charles Harpur, Commissioner of Works, said that Mapai Road was scheduled in 1921. An objection was lodged by the China Soap & Candle Ca. to a section of the road, on the ground that it served no purpose and as a result of this the section from Gordon Road to the Creek was expunged. Tt was not agreed that petitioner's fence should remain till the road was completed right through. The petitioner did not! protest against the scheduling of hhis land.
The total amount of land scheduled for new road building, extensions, widening ete, was far more than possibly could be financed in any Jone year. The process went on slowly, depending on development of particular - neighbourhood, public works, police purposes and a jwariety of reasons. It was impossible to develop any part with In going back to the period notice he was sure that his learned frie would agree on this interpretation, ise would they had measured many changes in years past, which could not be curried out by lack of funds, and now were, they bound by an adverse decision, they would never be able to widen Nanking Road, or any other road, would not be able to make a single extension or new road, and the Settlement could never progress.
Counsel closed by stating that the reason for the fence was to spite a relative, and he hoped the Court would find that the S, M. C. had fulfilled the provisions of the Land Regulations and deny. the plea for an injunction, Plaintiff's Reply Mr. Lewis then took up. the bu len for plaintiff, and imlately denied the suggestion of spite between relatives, because his client had taken out the permit for the fence two months before the other began construction of certain houses. hour permission.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.