CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
•
and said that the plaintiff left defendant's em ploy between four and five o'clock on the after. noon of the 30th June, The new cook prepared the dinner, and there was a complaint about it.
His Lordship gave judgment for the plaintiff, for 25 cents, and judgment for the defendant on the other amount.
29th July.
J. D. H. 8. DOS REMEDIOS v. G. GIRAULT.
85
Manila, read an advertisement which appeared in El Comercio stating that Mr. Carnero had full powers to do everything on behalf of Mr. Girault with the Spanish Government in connection with the supply of granite.
Mr. Gedge said that the defendants bad never employed the plaintiff in any way, and they did not know of this claim until they sent in theirs for $24.63. They employed Carnero, because he said he understood Spanish, and they did not know that he had been assisted in the corre- The plaintiff clained $500 (less $14.29 for spondence. If they had known that their business goods supplied to plaintiff) for services rendered | had been spread amongst the Portuguese of the to the defendants; and the defendants entered a colony they would have got rid of him. As a counterclaim for $24.63 for goods sold and de-matter of fact he was afterwards dismissed for livered.
misconduct, and it was not likely that he would again show his face in the colony.
Mr. E. Girault bore out this statement, and said that Carnero was to act only under the firm's instructions, and he had no right to privately engage the plaintiff. Carnero obtained the situation because he said be knew Spanish. He had to attend to the correspondence. The contract price for the work in Manila was $175,000.
August 1, 1895.j
upon his credit. It is not alleged in this case, that the separation was by mutua consent, but it is maintained that the separation was due to the husband's misconduct, and the misconduct that is alleged is desertion on his part. Lash's "Law of Husband and Wife,” p. 320, says, "What amounts to desertion, so as to raise the agency of necessity, does not seem to have been actually laid down. It is conceived that any leaving of the wife without a mutual agree- ment would be sufficient to create the agency of necessity, unless it was her own misconduct that occasioned the separation." The parties here had been married between 20 and 30 years: in consequence of a law snit, the husband left his wife against her will: com. plicity in legal proceedings conld not con- Mr. Dennys appeared for the plaintiff, and stitute misconduct on the part of the wife Mr. Gedge (of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and sufficient to justify, desertion by the hus. Master's office) represented the defendants. band; and I express no opinion whether the Mr. Dennys said the clạim was brought insobriety and irascibility imputed to her even against the firm of G. Girault, which was the if proved would have constituted misconduct in business name of the firm of two brothers-E. the sense of that term in the quotation from Girault and G. Girault. In 1892 the firm was Lush. Having thus found that the living apart in charge of E. Girault, and the claim was in was caused by the husband's misconduct alone, respect of services rendered to the firm in en- it remains to consider whether the wife was left abling them to obtain and carry out an order with adequate means or not. The evidence is for the Manila Government. There was a that after the desertion he provided her at verbal agreement between the defendant's clerk first with $30 a month and subsequently with pamed Carnero, whereby the plaintiff was to $40 a month, these payments not being regularly have оде per cent, of the profits. But made. Was this provision adequate, having re- if his Lordship thought that this agreement In giving judgment his Lordship said-The gard to the means and position of the hu-band ? was not clearly made out counsel submitted that real question in this case is, by whom was the The husband acknowledged that he owned pro: the plaintiff had rendered services that entitled contract made? The facts point to the conclu- perty in Hongkong to the value of over $80,000; tim to the full amount of the claim. But for sion that the contract was not made by Girault, he is compradore to Messrs Meyer and Co., and plaintiff's services the defendants would have but a clerk spoke to plaintiff and asked him to his wife stated without contradiction that he had been unable to carry out the three contracts they do certain work and promise to give him one further property in Macao and at a place called obtained for supplying granite for the construc- per cent. It is certainly not within the general Sha-mi. I am not called upon to assess what tion of a new port in Manila and for the con-authority of a clerk to bind his employer for any would be an adequate allowance, but I am of struction of the principal street. The do-assistance he may get to carry out bis ordinary opinion that an allowance of $4) a month is not fendants had a slight knowledge of Spanish, but duties. He is paid to do those duties, and it adequate to support the wife in a manner suit-could not write it. As all the documents con- is not within his scope or anthority to bind his able to her station and the husband's means. nocted with the contracts had to be written in employer for anything he likes to pay somebody
Judgment for plaintiff with costs.
Spanish the plaintiff, who was born in Manila, else to do those duties. There is no evidence was engaged by Carnero to trauslate the whole before me that any special authority was given of the documents. He did this work, but when to Carnero to outer into the contract with the be put in his claim he was continually put off, plaintiff. Judgment is therefore for Girault and this month a claim for $24 16 was lodged with costs. against him for goods supplied.
LUNG HOI CHEUNG v. TAI LEE STEAMSHIP
⠀ COMPANY, LIMITED.
This was an action to recover $250 damages sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of a collision which took place in the Canton River on the 13th May.
Mr. Gedge appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Dennys represented the defendants.
defendants' informatiou. Conusol then cross-
statement. In cross-examination he said he had Plaintiff gave evidence in support of this not made a demand for the money until the issue of the writ, and he had never had any communi- cation with the defendants in reference to the The plaintiff said that on the night of the contracts. He did most of the work in the pro- 13th May he was in charge of his juuk near
sence of Carnero for his information, but witness Capsulmoon. There Was
very little wind blowing, and the junk was moving slowly. He always thought that the translations were also for saw a steamer, the Sing Li, which was owned examined him with a view to showing that the by the plaintiffs, coming towards him, and he shouted "Look ahead; there is a vessel here:" admitted that most of the translations were made
work actually done was very small indeed. Joss paper was also burnt, but apparently no one on the steamer took notice of the warning verbally; the conditions of the contract and one or two letters were translated in writing. 110 and the junk was struck on the right side and could not give evidence of any contract entered sunk. The steamer then slowed down, lowered two sampans and rescued the crew of the into between the defendants and the Manila Go. junk. The claim included the following items: ernment, nor could he give evidence of the -value of junk $100; cash on board $30 plain-asked how he estimated that the profit was profits that were to be made. He was then tiff's clothing and personal effects $35; fivo $50,000 and be said he did not know. piculs of salt fish $25.
During the cross-examination of the witness, Mr. Denny's consulted with his clients and then with Mr. Gedge, when he announced that the parties had arrived at an agreement and wished to withdraw the suit.
His Lordship agreed to the withdrawal.
25th July.
YUNG YUEN . G. MURRAY BAIN.
A cook named Yung Yuen sued Mr. G. Murray Baju, editor of the China Mail, for $10 duo on account of wages, and for 25 couts for food supplied to defendant's dog.
There was no dispute about the 25 couts. The plaintiff said he went into Mr. Bain's employ in March last. He left on the 1st July bocanse he had other business, and he called in a substitute. On the 10th July he went for his wages for the month of June, but defendant re- fased to pay. In answer to his Lordship wit ness said he did not give notice to Mr. Bain, nor did he leave on the 30th June. On That day he prepared the dinner.
His Lordship said that if plaintiff worked out his full month he was entitled to his wages, although he did not give notice. For not giving notice he could be summoned at the Police Court. Of course if he left before his wages accrued he could not recover them.
Mr. Bain's boy and the new cook were called
Ho
Ho did not The tender
In answer to his Lordship witness said he agreed to take one per cout. in May, 1893 Carnero said, If you will help me to do these things I'll give you one per cent." say anything about the profits. made by Girault to the Spanish Government was for about $70,000; witness thought the tender was made after May. He could not say how, many letters be bad written; he had drawn up ore form of invoice, ono specification, and one circular.
J
His Lordship-How long did it take you to do all this work in connection with the con- tracts ? Put it all together and tell me how many hours you took over it ?. Did it constitute a fortnight's work ?
Witness-Not so much, my Lord.
Cross-examined-Carnero had never told him that. Remedios was in want of some money for translating.
Mr. G. Girault gave similar evidence, and counsel on both sides addressed the Court,
Mr. Dennys asked his Lordship not to saddle for the work. the plaintiff with cests, as somebody ought to pay
His Lordship-Caruero is the man who ought to pay for it.
not be made to pay the costs.
Mr. Dennys-I submit that my client should
His Lordship Costs go with the issue.
HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANK ING CORPORATION.
The following is the sixtieth report of the Court of Directors to the ordinary balf yearly general meeting of shareholders, to be held at at the City Hall, on Saturday, the 10th August,
at noon-
:
To the Proprietors of the orgkong & Shanghai
Banking Corporation.
Gontlomon -The directors have now to submit to you a general statement of the affairs of the Bank. and balance sheet for the half-your ending 30th June, 1895.
The net profits for that periot, in luding $129,663.61 balance brought forward from 1st account, after payig all charges, deducting interest paid and due, and making provision for bad and doubtful accounts, amount to $1.793,802.35.
The direct ra recommend the transfer of $500,000 from the profit and loss account to credit of reserve fund, which fund will thon stundjat $5,500,000.
After making this transfer and deducting re- muneration to directors there remains for appropria. tion $1,243,802.38, out of which the directors recom- mend a dividend of ono pound and five shillings per sharo, which will alsorb $114,41411.
The difference in oxchange betoon 4/6, the rate at which the dividend is dechired, and 2/11, the rate of the day, amonuts to $492,190.92.
The balance $312917.02 to be darried to new pront
His Lordship-Did it coustitute teu days' and loss account. work ?
Witness - No; five or seven days' work. His Lordship-Everything could bave been done in five or seven days P
Witness-Yes, including the authorized
ditions.
?
His Lordship--What is your salary ? Witness-$75 a month.
DIRECTORS.
The Honourable J. J. Keswick, Mr. J. S. Moses, and Mr. C. J. Holliday having resigned on leaving the colony, the Honourable J. J. Bell-Irving, Mr. M. D. Ezekie", and Mr-G] B. Dodwell have been invited to cou-fill the vacancies. Those appointments require con-
firmation at this meeting.
Several witnesses were called who stated that they had seen the plaintiff translating Spanish for Carnero, and they always understood that the work was for the defendants. One witness said that one day Carnero, when he was in
Mr. J. Kramer has been appointed Chairman and the Honourable A. BioConachie deputy Chairman for the current year.
AUDITORS.
The accounts have been audito by Mr. F. Hender. son and Mr. S. G. Bird,
J. KRAMER, Chairman Hongkong, 26th July, 1895,