During the cross-examination of Mr, Fang Chiaosho, the frst witness and plaintiff who said he had lost the receipts of ground rent he had paid to the Chinese Government, 'Mr. Bryan suggested that he had' never been in possession of such receipts and submitted that he was entitled to assume that witness did not have them as they could not be produced although their production had been requested at the frst hearing.
Mr, Bryan then suggested that the veal owner of the Iand could be located and possibly the Council could collect the land tax from him. Witness replied that this was irre Tevant to the case which prompted counsel to observe cryptically: "In other words, you think you are the court and can decide what is relevant and what is irrelevant? Witness reserved the right of ref to answer, In reply to further questions witness told the court that he inherited the Iand from his ancestors and admitted that there was no will bequoathing the land to him and order from any family council authoriaing him to take over the properly." Witness explained that there was no family council among country folk. He agreed that he had no leters of administration from a competent court or any court order allow no take over and holding the Mr. Bryan then suggested that witness had no proof of ownership and challenged him to produce evid~ ence establishing his ownership. Counsel suggested that witness might have found or bought the "fang ian" and had no tangible proof that he had inherited the land. Witness asserted that it had been left to him by his ancestors, and went on tordeclare that the "fan-tan" was genuine. Mr. Bryan observed that it was Up to him to prove it.
Letter to Ratepayers Association Afler further questions Mr. Bryan suggested to witness that he had never applied to the Chinese author! les for a land certificate because he knew his "fan-tan" was worthless and that he could not, prove his title This witness denied.
'Witness later on {old the court that hie had lost his copy of a letter ko had addressed to the Chinese Rate~ payers' Association, Mr. Bryan sugested that his failure to "produce the letter was because there was} something in it which witness did want to disclose in court. Mr. Bryan also declared that witness would have produced the letter if he was "honest and aboveboard".
Re-examified by Mr. Liu, witness sagraed that the Gouncit in '1938 had' asked him to pay land tax as-owner of the property, He also agreed that the Council had asked mo questions regarding his ownership and never doubted ft.
Mrs Liu suggested the Council had recognized witness's ownership to the land. Mr. Bryan intervened with the submission that the Council had. only extended recolmition to witness occupant of the land. Witness asserted In reply to further questions put by Mr. Bryan that he had not gone fo the Chinese Ratepayers' As-Seelation with the least intention of} bringing pressure to beer on the Council in the ease.
(Mr. Hu Tsing-fang, second plaintiff In the ease was. than called, "His story was substantially the same as the Mrst witness. except that was not deprived of telephone ser vice, not being a subscriber to it, He Said he was the owner of a plot of unregistered "fong tan" land with Chinese. dwellings at Lane 301-U16, Weihaiwei Road, comprising three and halt mow and produced a "fang-tan" which he said was issued in the faith year of the Emperor Yen Foong (1855) to Hu Hsuen-hsiang, his great, great, grandfather. He had buhl shops and houses on the land in 1933 and obtained a Council building permit, Not until 1938, he said, did the Council attempt' to collect, land tax from him. His land was incorporated and made a pert of the Settlement, he said, In 1699. In October last, he continued, his electricity supply was cut off." In reply to his enquiry: the Shanghai Power Company stated that they had acted under Tastruetions from the Council. Wit-hess said he was owing nothing for electricity supply and had paid his municipal rates up to date at the time, Witness denied suggestion of Mr. Bryan that ft was well-nigh impossible between 1885 and 1941 for a deed (0 pass through four generations as stated by witness who told the court his father was 60 years at the time he died. Excluding witness, Mr. Bryan suggested that the other ancestors who had inherited the land must have lived only eight years, which counsel declared was absurd, Mr, Hu wont on to say' that 1 property had not been bequeathed to him ina will or designated to him by. a family council and admitted that he had no. proof of ownership beyond the "fan-tan". He said he had Jost the receipts for ground rent which he had paid to the Chinese authorities.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.