342
THE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 17TH SEPTEMBER, 1864.
(B.)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONGKONG,
On the
day of
Hongkong (to wit) A. B. in his own Person [or by sue out a writ against C. D. indorsed as follows.
A.D. 186
!
**his Attorney]
[Here copy Indorsement of Plaintiff's claim]
And the said C. D. has not appeared
Therefore it is considered that the said A. B. recover against the said C. D. together with
Dollars for Costs of Suit,
Dollars
Title.
Preamble.
Part of Ordinance
HONGKONG.
ANNO VICESIMO OCTAVO VICTORIÆ REGINIÆ.
No 13 of 1864,':
By His Excellency SIR HERCULES GEORGE ROBERT ROBINSON, Knight, Governor and Commander-in-Chief of the Colony of Hongkong and its Dependencies, and Vice- Admiral of the same, with the Advice of the Legislative Council of Hongkong. HERCULES G. R. ROBINSON,
An Ordinance
amend the Laws of Trade and Commerce.
[13th September, 1864.]
Whereas it is expedient that the Matters embraced by Ordinance No. 3 of 1857 should be provided for by separate and distinct Ordinances: Be it enacted by His Excellency the Governor of Hongkong, with the Advice of the Legislative Council thereof, as follows:
I. So much of Ordinance No. 3 of 1857 as relates to "The Mercantile Law No. 3 of 1857 repealed. Amendment Act, 1856" (Imperial) shall be and the same hereby is repealed, except as to anything done before, or any Proceeding pending at, the time of the passing of this Ordinance.
Protection to Per-
goods before seizure,
seller.
II. No Writ of Fieri Facias or other Writ of Execution, and no Writ of Attachment sons acquiring Title to against the Goods of a Debtor, shall prejudice the Title to such Goods acquired by any &c. under writ against Person bona fide and for a valuable Consideration before the actual Seizure or Attach- ment thereof by virtue of such Writ, provided such Person had not at the time when he acquired such Title, Notice that such Writ or any other Writ by virtue of which the Goods of such Owner might be seized or attached, had been delivered to and remained unexecuted in the hands of the
Specific Delivery of goods.
III. In all Actions and Suits in either Court of Record in this Colony for Breach of Contract to deliver specific Goods for a Price in money on the application of the Plaintiff and by leave of the Judge before whom the Cause is tried, the Jury or (if the Case be tried without a Jury,) the Judge shall, if they or he find the Plaintiff entitled to recover, find by their Verdict or his Decision, as the case may be what are the Goods in respect of the Non-delivery of which the Plaintiff is entitled to recover and which remain undelivered; what (if any) is the Sum the Plaintiff would have been liable to pay for the Delivery thereof; what Damages (if any), the Plaintiff would have sustained if the Goods should be delivered under Execution, as hereinafter mentioned, and what Damages, if not so delivered; and thereupon if Judgment shall be given for the Plaintiff, the Court at its discretion, on the application of the Plaintiff shall have power to order Execution to issue for the Delivery, on payment of such Sum, (if any) as shall have been found to be payable by the Plaintiff as aforesaid, of the said Goods without giving the Defendant the Option of retaining the same upon paying the Damages assessed; and such Writ of Execution may be for the' Delivery of such Goods; and if such Goods so ordered to be delivered, or any Part thereof cannot be found, and unless the Court shall otherwise order, the Sheriff or other Officer of such Court of Record shall distrain the Defendant by all his Lands and Chattels in the Colony, till the Defendant deliver such Goods, or at the option of the Plaintiff, cause to be made of the Defendant's Goods the assessed Value or Damages, or a due Proportion thereof; provided that the Plaintiff shall, either by the same or a separate Writ of Execution, be entitled to have made of the Defendant's Goods the Damages, Costs, and Interest in such Action or Si
*