There has been presented in evidence the record of the proceeding of the Land Commissioners in respect of the property involved in this case. This record shows that the proceedings before the Commissione: had relation to the compulsory surrender of a portion only of B. C. Lot No. 10027, and not the whole of said lot, and that the Land Commis-soners, as required by Article VIA of the Land Regulations, gave due consideration to the fact that the land was developed with buildings. No evidence has been offered that the Council has taken any more than that portion of the land covered by the award of the Land Comjnissioners; nor has it been shown that thet award was not just.
As to the claim of the plaintiff Loh that he was the beneficial owner and occupier of the land end buildings im question, the Council has produced in evidence a document described as a "Declaration of Trust" in respect of B. C. Lot No. 10027, signed by Agar and Company, Limited, and bearing dete the thirteenth day of December 1935, in which a Chines? bank, and not the plaintiff Loh, was declared to be the "beneficial owner" of the property in question. This document bears an endorsement dated the fourth day of August 1938, by the bank named therein as the "beneficial owner, directing Algar and Company, Limited, to "transfer and hold" the property described therein for another Chinese bank. There testimony that the property wa: mortgaged by the plaintiff Loh to the Chinese banks and that such mortgage was not foreclosed and there also been. presented in evidence, certain correspondence of Chinese banks and attorneys representing the registered owners from which it might appear that the plaintiff Loh was by them regarded as in fact the "beneficial owner" of the property; but it also appears from the record of the proceedings before the Land Commissioners that the plaintiff Loh while appearing before those Commissioners in June 1957, stated that he had been adjudged a bankrupt by order of the Chinese court and that all his assets had been seized by that court, and while in his testimony before the Court of Consuls in this case the plaintiff Loh stated that he had been discharged from bankruptcy, the date of s discharge has not been definitely established and no other proof in respect of this aspect of the case has been offered.
The Court, after careful consideration, holds that the proof before it is not adequate to establish satisfactorily and definitely that the plaintiff Loh was at the times material to this case the "beneficial owner" of the property known as B. C. Lot No. 10027, bub it holds that adequate proof has been presented to establish that the plaintiff-Loh had some equitable interest in the property and that he was, at the times material to the case, and for some years prior thereto, the "occupier" of the property, within the meaning and intent of the Land Regulations.
Unwarranted Eviction cher by- force and er in a police van to d is made for puni-the indignities suf-assault and battery Article VIA of those Regulations, in providing for the compulsory surrender of land for certain public purposes, stipulates that "surrender oftheland...on the terms of the award and findings of the Land Commissioners shall, in case of need, be enforced by the Court or Courts having jurisdiction over the owners and occupiers of the land."
The meaning and intent of these words are clear, and although the Court has carefully examined and considered the argument of counsel for the defendant Council that upon the execution of the appropriate surrender deed by the registered owners covering the portion of the Jot to be taken for public purposes the plaintiff Loh become a mere trespasser on the property and sübject therefore to eviction by force, it necessary, by the Council, it is
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.