- (1.) In treating the letter of Chow Rajapoot as a notice, and not as an agreement, I am taking the same view of it as the Court at Bangkok in the decision of His Royal Highneas Krom Kenaug Wongsa Dheraj Sinde in the suit brought against the Chief of Zimmay (under whose permit the plaintiff claims) by the defendant Moung Shoay Gaw, under whom the appellant claims. The document may be taken as evidence against them of the law of that place and of the evidence given in the suit. It appears from the said judgment and otherwise that Moung Shoay Gaw went to reside in Moulmein, and did not superintend the forest; and that in the Siamese civil year 1224, Chow Rajapoot wrote to the Commissioner at Moulmein, asking for the paper granted to Moung Shoay Gaw, which letter was in substance as follows:-- The Chow Rajapoot gave Moung Shoay Gaw a paper granting the superintendence of the forest of Muang Yuom, and Moung Shoay Gaw went to live in Moulmein, and did not superintend the forest. Therefore, Moung Shoay Gaw will no longer be allowed to superintend the forest or cut timber.
(2.) The Commissioner replied that he had called Moung Shoay Gaw to him and questioned him; that Moung Shoay Gaw said that, when he was prosecuting Mr. Lenaine, the Moulmein Judges sent that document to India; but when the Indian Judges returned the paper, it would be forwarded to Chow Rajapoot. From this Moung Shoay Gaw tacitly admitted that his interest whatever it was had ceased.
(3.) It was considered by the Court at Bangkok that the neglect of Moung Shoay Gaw to work the forest for a period of three years came within the terms of Article 4 of the Treaty with the British Government, of which a copy was set out in the judgment; and, consequently that, if the paper given by Chow Rajapoot to Moung Shoay Gaw had been an agreement similar to the usual agreements in the country, which it was not, being only a notice to the British authorities, it had become useless; and that Moung Shoay Gaw could not resume the cutting of the timber without personal conference with the tributary prince of Zimmay, Chow Rajapoot, and their relatives. Chow Rajapoot in his examination says that the document X, S.A. was the original letter written to the authorities; that the forests belonged to him; that having once given a similar power to that marked X, S.A. to work a forest for ten years, it cannot be cancelled, unless there was some proper cause; that it might be transferred by the grantee without the knowledge or consent of the grantor; and that the non-user of such a document would not justify its cancel-ment. But he also stated, with reference to the Chief of Zimmay, that he could not give any opinion as to the correctness or incorrect ness of the acts of his superiors. It was stated by the R.e.g.e.n.t. of the Northern Provinces of Siam that Zimmay was a state subject to Siam, and subject to orders sent by him; and that, with reference to the answers of Chow Rajapoot as to the circumstances of his grant to Moung Shoay Gaw, and to questions of law and custom as to its transference and cancelment, the statements of Chow Rajapoot were not entitled to any value, as the Shan States are in a semi-civilized condition, and their laws and customs cannot be considered as defined.;