subject possibly to the rule of hotchpot. As a matter of fact however, and indeed it appears indirectly from this case, male heirs existing, unmarried daughters are nevertheless entitled to dower in the proportion of one-half the son's share; but it seems that the custom in this matter varies in different provinces, although the son is invariably bound to provide for and obtain the marriage of his sisters.

CASE 5

DECISION OF MAO TIEN-LAI, PREFECT

OF PING-YANG

A brother inherits if deceased is childless, but, although heir, he cannot prevent his brother alienating the property while living, etc.

In this case, Tsao Hsiao is uterine brother of Tsao Chi-hsien. Chi-hsien appears to be childless, and in easy circumstances; Hsiao to have two children, and to be utterly devoid of property covetous therefore of the valuables his brother may leave behind him. Chi-hsien selling a piece of land belonging to him to the Military Doctor

Lo Hung-pao, Hsiao holds that his brother's property is his, and outrageously prevented Hungpao enclosing it and Hung-pao brings an action against him. Before this is decided, Hsiao tries to influence me [to decree] that Chi-hsien dying childless his property goes to his brother. Chi-hsien however happens to be alive, and Hsiao has therefore no claim — and for attacking the purchaser when his attempt to get his brother's land from him has failed, he must be flogged.

Note.

per Mao Tien-lai P.

This case lays down that a brother inherits when the deceased is childless, but that, although heir, he cannot prevent his brother alienating his property while living. As he could have stopped the sale had his brother inherited the land coupled with the condition of maintaining the ancestral sacrifices, whether this condition had been specific or merely to be implied, the plaintiff seems to have thought himself justified in preventing the transfer though there was no such condition

on the simple ground of the injury to his prospects thereby.

In this case, Lo Chi-su, a compound of wolf and tiger, already convicted at the Prefecture of poisoning the country with his venom, on pretence of redeeming his offence, makes a fraudulent representation claiming a piece of land forming part of the demesne of the Hsing-lung monastery, as established by an inscription on stone of long standing. The monastery itself has been burnt down, but the conditions attached to the original grant, as to services, are still fulfilled by the priest Tsung-chên in a mat shed, known as the Lei-chia-chung farm. Chi-su represents further that the aforesaid land had been sold to him

by a person against whom he has a spite one Pêng Chien-i.

Now, supposing the sale to have been regular, Chi-su has no right to vent his spite on Buddha ; and his conduct in passing from injuring the common people merely, to attacking the priests, and not satisfied with snapping at men, trying to bite at Buddha, shews that the punishment inflicted by the Prefect was not enough to frighten him. We must try therefore if the cangue will have any effect.

Note.

per Yen Hsiao-hsü M.

Pêng Chien-i, it would appear, was the person entitled to alienate supposing the trust to have lapsed; but it is laid down that so long as the objects of the original trust are carried out, it will be maintained even against the representatives of the original grantors. Had the services been given up, the decision would have been different.

Note the weight given to the record of the original trust engraved subsequently on a stone

tablet.

COMMISSIONER OF YEN-CHOU

Religious Trusts A bona fide purchaser of trust property for valuable consideration and without notice will not be

disturbed, etc.

In this case Yang Shih-chin is the purchaser by regular sale, witnessed by formal deed, of eighteen mu of valuable land belonging to one Sung. It appears moreover that the land has passed through at least three hands Sung having purchased it of one Fang, while before this it is alleged that it was owned by one Hsiang and granted by him to the Kao-lung monastery.

The black-frocked gentry however held their peace when Fang took possession of the property; and it is only now after twenty years have elapsed that a wandering bonze Chao Hsi, combining with a disreputable associate Hsiang Hsiao-chêng, makes an attempt to get violent possession of the property.

The case has been decided by the Magistrate,