January 9, 1895.]
DEATH OF THE CROWN PRINCE OF SIAM.
SPECIAL TELEGRAM TO THE DAILY PRESS BANGKOK, 4th Janary. The Crown Prince of Siam is dead. Excite- ment prevails.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
had said, there was only a differance of $1.300 whichever of the two ways the computation was made. His Lordship also remarked that this whole "investigation was as much one of common sense as of law or valuation theories and the Board were determined in each case to find out as nearly as possible the gross rental value and the condi- tion of the property and than mike such allow Board and that they did not care for all these ances and deductions as should seem just to the fin systems of valnation, that were so full of in. tricacies as to produce confusion.
'I he royal dignity in diam is nominally here- ditary. but does not always descend from the father to the eldest son, each sovereign being invested with the privilege of nominating his own successor. The deceased Prince Somdetch
During the inquiry into this cas...it appeared Chowfa Maha Vagirimhis, was born on the 27th that much of the improvements ar now worth June, 1878, and was designated as Crown Princess, having been blown down or distroyed by in January 1887. He was the eldest son of the fire or other agencies, since the closing up of fist Queen. In the present condition of Siam the Taipingshan, so that now there are in several selection of his successor must naturally cause
cases not even bisements left. some excitement The King himself has of late been in very bad health and at one time fears for bis life were entertained... His Majesty has now far recovered as to be able to attend to affairs of state, bat it is believed that his life is not likely to be a long one. His children - are all young, and should the throng shortly become vacant there would necessarily be a long regency, with all its attendant dangers, which would be especially great in the case of Siam in viàw. of the critical relations with France. The King has one other son by the first Queen Prince Chowfa Samoli-Diwongse Warstai, born 9th July, 1881, and several other sons by the second Queen and other ladies of the harem.
The Bangkok Times of the 29th ultimo has the following reference to, the Crown Prince :- A RH. the Crown Prince has been suffering from a serious cold during the past few days. On Wednesday evening his condition gave riso to some auxity, and Drs. Hays. Tu Hee. Nightingale, and Upton were jointly in afteng- ance. On Thursday evening a more favourable. bulletin was sent to His Majesty the King, but the royal patient is still somewhat unwell. Queen is constantly with him.
TAIPINGSHAN RESUMPTION ARBITRATION BOARD.
The
The Taiping hau Arbitration Board sat again on Friday and considered Claims and 15. Tub. following notice of the sittings of the Board was alyo pisteil at the entrance to the buildings Thursd vy, 10th January, Claim No. 3, the rumor- kong. Pre Insurancs Co., for $36,075, No. 17 Wang iya Pat, for $5,000; and No. 34, Choong sakoon, for $1,900. On Friday, 14th Jangry, 2.ims 4 and 33, S. Musso and Cheung shi, for $15,000, No. 8. Cheong Yan To and others, for 8 1760; No 12, Wong Mui, for $13,000; and No. 34. Ng Yuk, for $5,600 On Saturday, 12th Jann ry, Claim- No. 18, Lenug Tat Tin, for $4,928.50; and No. 28, the Spanish Procuration, for $5,000,
The case of Chenug San, being Claim No. 11, in respect of lots 570, 571, 572 and 422, was hiken up.
Mar. 9. D. Wilkinson appeared for | the plaintiff and called as export witus es Mr. R. K. Leigh and Mr. C. Palmer The Govern. ment was represented as usual by the tton. W, M. Goodman, Attorney-General, assisted by Mr. A. B Jobuson. Crown Solicitor, and the Hon, F. A. Cooper, Director of Public Works.
The claim was for $79,100, ag unst which the Government bad off red $28,797. The claim was, however, subsequently reduced to $56.000, and the Government's offer increased to $30,000 The presentation of the claim differed very little from that of others previously reported
The next case submitted was that of Tang Kow Sher, original y for $55,453-57, but now gitored to $55,514.80, including the 10 per orat. for compuls ry ́sale, This property was repre. Bented by Mr. V H Deacon, who claimed that the valuation should be based on the assessor's last valuation, especially in this cake, whor there were no satisfactory rental returns to go by. This led to much discussion between the Court and counsel on both sides, but finally his Lordship informed the counsel for the claimout that he would, if he wished, sit there and hear him argue until midnight but that his mund was definitely made up on the point of jaserring the renials as the fairer basis of determining the comp nsation valne. He said however, thị thể wished all tho light possibla inch ease and he would like to see what Mr. Denoon's results w re on the assessment buis To estimates w re then carefully ex- amined and it was fonud that, as My. `Deacon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Government valuation of the property was g25 344, but they were willing to offer $30,000 When this last offer was made the Court asked the counsel for the caimant what his client would say to the Government off, but Mr Dadon sail that unless his "Lordship would adjourn the Con t he could not go and consult
1
with her and see, whereupon his Lorship said that if Mr. Done in would promise to urge the are plane of the offer upon his client he would urn the Court, but Mr Deacon refused to commit himself and the e ish proceeded.
When the evidenc, was all in, the Court adjoured to Thursday next, the 10th inst, at
10:30.
JUPREME COURT
5th January.
N SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFOSE HIS HON UR MR. A. G. Wish,
ACTING PUISNE JUDOK.
MOUTRIE U MCCA BE.
Mr. H. L/D muys appeared for the plaintiff nod Mr. J. Hastings, (of Mr. V. H. Deacon's office) for the defendant,
|
His Lordship. Zave judgment as follows:- In this as the plaintiff sued originally for 3599 35. "That es im - was made up of various items, including one of $51.49 for interest; but the claim was afterwards rolucel, as there hug | beon soms misunderstanding as to the agroek | ment. between the defendant, and Montric, 12obinso¦¦ & Co. | The claim now is really for $1 595) plus the claim for interest. The defendant has paid $11,45 into Court. The facts, shortly, are these! Somewhere about the end of 1599 the plaintiff. Mr. Montric, was in partnership with Mr. Robinson, and they sold pianos, &c. in Shanghai. - In December of that year, the defeuil nut entered into an agreement with Mr. Kobinson, on behalf of the firm, which agreement was to date back to 1st November, 1890, Amongst other things that agreement con- tained a clanse to the effact that the said Edward McCaba shall be employed by the said Montrie Robinson & Co as pianoforte-taner, repairer, salesman, &e.; or in sucli other capacity or capa- cities as they may find desirable in the bus noss of musical instruent sellers, xo, at Shanghai Kobe, and Yokohama or such other place or plices where they may bereafter carry on business, &c Thou it goes on to provide for the salary, which need not go into, as there is no dispute about that; and there is a clause which says that in addi- tion to the said sulary the said Moutrie, Robin, son & Co. shall provide the said Edward McCabe with his apartment. Now, with reference to tha elause, it is sufficient to say that an Kgrammen! was subsiquently come to, the effect of which was that the defondant was, to all intents and purposes, to receive $25 in respect of lodgings In puranance of this agreement he went to Kubá, meeting Mr. Moutria at Nagasaki, and he ex: plained generally to Mr. Moutrie the terms of the agreement. Defendant took up the business in Kobe, and from January to October, 1891, he paid frequent visits to Yokohama in the interests of the firm and incurred certain hotel expenses, amounting to $326.75. Now, it is these hotel expenses which is the chief matter in dispute between the parties. The plaintiff, Mr. Moutrie, who has since dissolved partnership with Mr. Robinson and, apparently, under the deed of dissolution, is entitled to collect the debts of the firm, complains that by the terms of the agree inect the defendant was not entitled to re osive more than his salary and lodg
|
|
ing allowance at Kobe. The defendant states that his bead-quarters were in Kobe and while at Yokohama he was there as a traveller for the firm and was entitled to charge hotel expenses and did charge hotel expauses, just as he was entitled to charge them when travelling to other towns in Japan, Tokyo, Kyoto, and elsewhere.
How.
ever, on the words of the agreement itself, interpretation is the right one. I have no hesitation in saying that the plaintiff's
The defen dant was not there as a traveller, and I am of opinion that at none of these places was ho entitled to claim anything more than his sal-
ary
Was
Mr.
nothing in that agreement to prevent the firm and loding allowance. However, there is from giving him extra remuneration of any kind. These expenses were incurred from tine to time between January and October, 1891 and the defendant in his monthly accounts “entered these expenses and charged the firm with them, and these monthly accounts, so far as the evidence shows were duly forwarded to the heal office in Shanghai. And during the whole|of|| that period, from January to October, |no complaint was made and no objection taken by the firm to these items being debited to the firm. In October Mr. Mourie arrived at Yokohama for the purpose of balanc- ing the books. He did so, and in the curse of do- ing so entered. with his own hand, these items from the cash book into the ledger, and dabited the firm with The amonuts. He also made out the private acconots of the defendant with the firm, and the defendant is not debited with any of the items in respect of which this chin is now made, and a balance was struck slow- ing a balance of a few dollars in the defendant's favour and it is carried forward to now account, In October, 1891, Mr Montrio was of opinion, therefore, that McCabe was entitled to ch irge his expenses, that he did so rightly, and paid them. Some friction appears to have ari en between the firmn and the defondant, and in July. -1892, the firm repudiated their liability and practi- cally asked for a refund. The defendant protested; and, think, has always protested against that course. The question then is-Can the firm, after having practically acquiesced in their liability from January to October and confirmed the course followed by the defendant, tura round and say «You are liable to us for these saus "? Montrio stated that the defendant agreed that the defendant should be debited with these hotel expenses in consideration that the firm should be debited with $25 for the ten months. The defen. dant, however, denies that he agreed to this. Mr. Robinson knows nothing about it and I am declined to say the defendant never agreed to it. Can the firm after having acquiesced inand agreed to de- fendant's action so far as July, 1892, repudiate it? I am of opinion they cannot; and I amstrengthened in my opinion by two sets of circumstances, Que is, that on 24th December, 1891, two months after Mr. Montrie balanced the books and debited himself and his partner with these expenses, a letter was written from the office in Shang bail signed by Moatrie, Robinson & Co., Thara is a paragraph in it which strikes me 89 remarkable.. It says: "We would remind you that in paying your board in Yokohama during the past twelve months in addition to lodging, we have given von about $300 more than, you have any right to expect. by the terms of your agreement." Now, it seems to me that if they did not intend to take over the libility for hotel expenses then, no other sense can attached to the words. After the part- nership was dissolved and the defendant had come to Hongkong, the plaintiff sent defendant an no- int purporting to set out the indebtedness of, the defendant to the plintiff, and in that account
mention is made of. the hotel expenses, and the firm would gót have made any claim in July, 1892, if it had not been for the friction that had arisen, and the present. notion would not have hiện taken if it had not been that the defendant was le ving Mr. Moun rie and can'ng to join Mr. Robinson in Hongkong. Therefore, I do not think the pluintiff can recover this sum of $3 '6 75. There is another ifein of $24 75 sued for. This the defendant states was for expenses inonrred in Koba. Montrie maintains that the defendant spent too much money on his expenses there, and the sole question is whether the expenses were reasonable or unreasonable. Mr. Moutrie says the defendant might have done it cheaper, but I do not think the defendant was obliged to go to the cheapest place. On the evidence I am not of opinion
|
nog