Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Wright v. Chen Yu-ting, 1919

[public nuisance]

Wright v. Chen Yu-ting

Mixed Court, Shanghai
November 1919
Source: The Shanghai Gazette, 1 November 1919

 

Disputed Right Of Way on Pingliang Road.

Mr. G. H. Wright's Action Against A Chinese.

   At the Mixed Court yesterday Mr. G. H. Wright sued Chen Yu-ting before Mr. Grant Jones, British Assessor, and Magistrate Konn to recover damages for the wrongful obstruction of a path leading from his property of Pingliang Road.  Mr. Wright also asked for a declaration that the plaintiff, his agents, servants and visitors are entitled to as perpetual right of way over the main road which the plaintiff claimed existed, and an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with that right of way.

   The case for the plaintiff was that he was the owner of a plot of land known as B. C. Lot No. 2381 which was bounded on the east by a main road, and the defendant had recently acquired land contiguous to plaintiff's.  Plaintiff claimed that the owner or occupier of his lot were entitled to a perpetual right of way from the lot over the main road in question to Pingliang Road and vice versa.  During the month of August, 1919, the defendant wrongfully obstructed that tight of way by placing a fence across the main road and had continued to maintain the fence and intended to continue doing so.

   The defence denied the existence of the main road at all, but said that on that boundary of the property there was a creek, along the bank of which ran an uncobbled, unmetalled pathway about 1 ft in width.  That was, it was contended, a private pathway and was not shown on any of the plans of the property kept by the local tipao.  If the main road mentioned by the plaintiff meant the pathway just described, the defendant averred that there was no right of way over it.  He admitted obstructing the pathway by erecting a fence, but denied that the plaintiff had been in any way injured as there was a pathway running through the lot to Pingliang Road and there was also in course of construction a road to be called the Tsitsihar Road which would run through the lot to Pingliang Road, while another pathway led from the lot to Lay Road.

   After evidence had been adduced the case was adjourned.

Published by Centre for Comparative Law, History and Governance at Macquarie Law School