The question whether the monk: in charge of a temple in Shanghai has the right to dispose of any property belonging to the temple without first securing permission the local authorities was brought up in the First Special District Court on May 11 during the hearing of an action 8 Chang Nich Realty Ca. one Koo Hong-zung for alleged trespass upon a piece of land the corner of Bubblizg Well and Vu Yuen Roads, known as St, George's lot, Plaintiff told the Court that the land in question was sold to it in 1929 by the monk then in charge of the Bubbling Well Temple and that, the monk, having failed to deliver the land, was sued in the Court. The ease was compromised when ye "Vong, the, monk, agreed to turn over the land to the plaint-if. The plaints the defendant had commenced build. ing operations on the land without ita permission. As the defendant had no right to occupy the pro-petty, the plaintiff asked the Court for an order restraining him from continuing construction work, Represented by Dr. L. OE. Yang, lof the law firm of Messrs." Yeh Ca. the defendant contended that: the' pi Thad no right to bring the "action against him on the ground that the land, being the pro-Perty of a Chinese temple, could hot be disposed of by the monk in charge of that temple without permission of the district authorities Defence "quoted the Regulations Governing the Temples, promulgate the Centra' Government $929," and pointed out that under the said regulations, the property Delong to any temples cannot be disposed of without permission of district authorities.
Defence further contended that, in. 1926, three years before the alleged sale. the defendant had entered into a lease with Kuo Yung, the monk then in charge of the Bubbling Well Temple. By, that lease, defendant secured right to bail' on that property The lease also provided that the term should be t0 years from January 1, 19% and that the defendant should a yearly rental of $8400. Granted that the property had changed' hands, the transfer would in no way affect' the defendant as lessee, defendant stated.
Defence asked the Court to dismiss the. action and reserved its Tight to claim damages arising from any order restraining him from con Huning building operations on the propert adjournment was ordered
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.