The Council is represented by Mr. G, H, Wright their legal adviser, Mr, S. M. Edwards, Secretary of the Shanghai Municipal Council, being in attendance.
Mr. R. G. MeDonald appears for! the lessee of the premises Mr. C. Shepherd, supported by Mr. S. H. Lewis.
At the outset a point of procedure:
raised by Mr. McDonald who expresses the opinion that the plaintiff should open any case, to which Mr, Wright demurs, but even though Mr, McDonald cannot cite a concrete tance wherein his contention i corroborated, insofar as the Land Commission is concerned, the Com jssioners give the requisite permission for Mr, Shepherd's legal adviser to open.
The case concerns the amount, if; any, to be paid to a lessee of a property, the Inndlords having been separately compensated by _the Shanghai Municipal Council in. respect of an area to be excis: d from their endastral lot.
At this sitting, the Commissioners hear Mr, McDonald, who client Mr. Shepherd, exami and who is, in turn, cross-examined, by Mr. Wright.
The proceedings are reported verbatim and copies handed to both parties.
The hearing is adjourned at 6.50 am. 3
At 230 pin, on December 8 1926, the cross-examination of Mr.
Shepherd is continued by Wright after which his client is re-examined by Mr. MeDonald, Then followed the exa Mr, Wright, and r: of Mr. E. P, Hardman, partner Messrs. Lowe, Bingham & Matther Chartered Accountants, following. which Mr, J. A. Turner, partner in Messrs. Seth, Mancell & McLure, Chartered Accountants, is called and Jexamined by Mr. MeDonald, thereby concluding the plaintiff's case.
Mr. Wright, for the Council, calls Mr. R. E. Scatchard, examines him, he is cross-examined by Mr, Me-Donald, whereupon Mr. Wright addresses the Commissioners on behalf of the Council and Mr, Me-
Donald for his client, during which, questions are put by the Chairman of the Commission on various points at issue.
The proceedings terminated at 6 pam., the Chairman of the Land Commission intimating that the decision of the Commissioners would be notified to both Parties in due course.
The proceedings are again reported verbatim and copies handed to doth parties.
'Commissioners' Finding After considering the case from all of the many aspects as presented, the Commissioners on this the 24th day of December, 1926, decide as follows:
In this ease heard on Dscember 2 and 8, 1926, Mr. C. E, Shepherd claims the sum of Mexican $142,871 as compensation for the compulsory surrender of a portion of the premises Nos. 73 and 73a Szechuen Road, of, which he is the lessee, for the widening of the Szechuen Road, and} states that he is making no claim against the: landlord; it is, in fact, avcase of valuing the lessee's interest. cil's powers for the compulsory Jacquisition of land.
The articles of agreement between the Landlord and the lessee dated February 6, 1925 contain no reference to any proposed road widening.
The Road Widening From the evidence before the:
Commissioners it appears that although the claimant was aware of 'a possible road widening, he was not advised of any definite date on which such widening would be put into force, and as this surrender was first scheduled in 1922, three lyeers before the lease was signed, the lessee had reasonable grounds {for presuming that there might be still further delay possibly even until the termination of his lease in December 1999.
Under the Land Clauses Consolidation Act 1845—Scction 120—
"Tenants to be Compensated." Every Lessee shall be entitled to receive from the promoters of the undertaking, compensation for the! damage done to him in his tenancy!
reason of the severance of the! lands required from those not re-cuired or otherwise by reason of the execution of the works.
It is clear, therefore, that the ing body, in ipal Council of Shanghai, and not against)
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.