Malaysian Legal History Essay

The Straits Settlements were a group of British territories located in Southeast Asia. Originally established in 1826 as part of the territories controlled by the British East India Company, the Straits Settlements came under basisalize British control as a crown colony on 1 April 1867. The colony was dissolved in 1946 as part of the British reorganisation of its south-east Asian dependencies learning the end of the Second reality War. The Straits Settlements consisted of the four individual settlements of Malacca,Penang (also known as Prince of Wales Island), Singapore (with Christmas Island and the genus Cocos Islands).The island of Labuan, off the coast of Borneo, was also incorporated into the colony with effect from 1 January 1907, becoming a separate settlement within it in 1912. With the expulsion of Singapore, Christmas Island, and the Cocos Islands, these territories now form part of Malaysia. The Island of Penang in highligh was under the presidential term of Sultan o f kedah however its noted that after the esthablishment of English East India come with an agreement was penned by the Ruler of Kedah and the company for penang.Now in decide what is the lex loci of the island go awaying require answers to two motilitys as below i) Was the Island a settled or ceded colony?. ii)Was the rectitude of Kedah to be applied to island of Penang on acres that the island was ceded?For the first 20 years after esthablishment , it was noted that the only natural uprightness in place was Regulations of 1794 or nature of law. On touch 1807, the English Crown granted the first charter of justice, which resulted in the esthablishment of court of Judicature in Penang. The effect of this charter could be seen in Kamoo v Basset, In re Goods of Abdullah and Reg v Willans.The Kamoo v basset (1808) gaffe, notes that the plaintiff a native of Bengal, had agreed to be an employed by the defendent who was an army military officer in the Bengal Native Infantary. However upon severe mistreatment by the employer an Police Majistrate rush was made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed and action for assault,battery and false imprisonment against the defendent,claiming change for $600. The verdict in short noted payment to plaintiff in $150 with cost.In the Goods of Abdullah (1835) is noted the principle issue is whether a Muslim,who died in Penang,device his entire property by means of will? However it was unflinching that the will of Abdullah being esthablished as a valid instrument.In the case of Fatimah Ors v Logan Ors it was noted that since 1786 , Penang being then a desert and lowbrow island,inhabited except by few intinerant fisherman and without any fixed institution was ceded by the Rajah of Kedah to Captain light,an office of EIC,for and on behalf of the company. This fact was strategic in this case in view of the platiffs petition to encounter a decree of the court declaring that the deceased died intestate. Three preliminary question arised in this case which were, i) Wheter the capacity of the deceased to make a will is to be decided by Mohamedan or by English law. The verdict was given as the deceaseds capacity to write a will will be decided by lex loci and not by Mohamedans law.Other Important cases in aspect of the lex loci includes Choa Choon Neoh v Spottiswodde, Isaac Penhas v topaz Soo Eng, Shaik Sahied v Sockalingam Chettiar.Reception of English Law in Malay States.As noted earlier frequent law and equity was applied in the straits settlements by virtue of the three charter of justice. The charters however did not apply to the Malay states. The introduction of the Resident system in Perak correspond to the Pangkor Treaty 1874, allowed the introduction of incline styled courts by the Sultan and english resolve were appointed.It should be noted that beggining with the civil Law Enactment No 3 of 1937,such judicial practise received the official stamp of approvalby legislature. Section 2 (i) of the enactment provides that save in so far as other provision has been or may hereafter be mada any written law in force in the federated Malay states,the common law of england,and the reins of equity,as administrated in england at the commencement of this Enactment shall be in force in the Federated Malay states.On case which earth-closet be disscussed in terms of common law are the Goverment of Perak v A.R Adams (1914) , which concerns damage to the plantiffs land by the defendent. The question which was arised was wheter the defendant is salvage from liability on the ground that he was without wilfulness or carelessness using his land on the principle that a man moldiness use his own land and not to damnify another. The court found the defendent punishable under all circumstances he is liable for the damage caused.In re the will of Yap Kwan Seng, which the deceased gave direction in his will that his hose and land be held in trust for ever for a family house for ancestr al worship and as family burial ground in accordance with chinese customs. The Issue before the court was whether such a custom was valid a not. The arguments made were (1) That the rule against perpetuities does not excist in and should not be adopted in the federated malay states, (2) That even out if the rule be applied,the trust are saved from offence agaist it, (3) That having cipher to chinese customs the trust should be regarded as religious and human and therefore without offence to the rule. During the proceeding of this case it was noted that the rule agaisnt perpetuities has never been applied in the states. However it was concluded that to regard these trust all as trust for religious purposes or as trust concerning or benefitting the community at large or any portion of it,it follow that there is no way to be saved or excepted from repugnancy to the rule of perpetuities and are therefore void.In the case of permodalan plantations sdn.bhd v Rachuta sdn.bhd (1985) can be discussed as legal set off which is based on english statute is not included in the expression the common law of england. Only equitable set off is part of the local law and consequently the court can only deal with and equitable set-off.