Page
September 12, 1895,]
is in the name of the old Bank before the liqui- dation. That Bank was in the hands of the li- quidator and is now re-constucted under a new
name, ...
His Lordship-Is this material P Mr. Drummond I am not quite sure that the plaintiffs in this suit-
His Lordship-You admit that the Bank ad- vanced the money.
Mr. Drummond-We admit they advanced certain money, but that there is a debt due to the Bank we deny.
Witness, in answer to further questions, said The Bank was in the hands of the liquidator for three months, and it is now called the Bank of China and Japan, Limited.
Mr. Drummond--The plaintiff Bank in this snit practically ceased in December, 1894, and has never been in existence since P
Witness-Yes; the Bank is still in liquidation. When the money was advanced I did not know the partners in the Chinese Banks. I arrived in Hongkong on 29th January, 1892, and pro- bably knew Kan Sing Toi before I took charge of the Bank. I did not know he was a partner in any one of the Banks. I first heard of the disappearance of Lo Hok Pang on Sunday, 27th March.
Mr. Drummond raised the question whether the action could be brought by the Bank in its present name, and his Lordship adjourned the case to give an opportunity to plaintiffs' counsel to consider whether an amendment of the plead ings should be applied for.
The case was thereupon adjourned.
4th September.
In this case counsel on both sides conferred with his Lordship in chambers and after hearing the arguments respecting the point raised on Tuesday with reference to the name of the Bank his Lordship adjourned the case sine die in order that the pleadings might be amended. W. G. HUMPHREYS AND CO. V. LEE PANG CHO. The plaintiffs brought two actions against the defendant, one to recover $3,389.73, and the other to recover $4,684.77. A writ of foreign attachment had been made returnable for yes. terday, and in both suits judgment was given for the plaintiffs with costs. Mr. H. E. Pollock (instructed by Messrs. Wilkinson and Grits) appeared for the plaintiffs.
5th September.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE MR. A. G. WISE (Acting PUISNE
JUDGE.) *
Gr
AJA SINGH Y. LI HONG MI The plaintiff brought two actions against the defendant to recover altogether $1,544 due on promissory notes.
Mr. JJ. Francis, Q.C. (instructed by Mr. Hastings, of Mr. V. H. Deacon's office), appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Dennys represented the defendant.
Mr. Francis said the case was a little peculiar. The actions were not actually brought on lost promissory notes, but the notes were not pro- ducible, and it was not known where they were. The plaintiff was 8 watchman at Quarry Bay and the defendant was an interpreter at the Supreme Court. The claims were on two promissory notes; one for $1,000 at interest at three per cent. per month, but the interest was abandoned in order to bring the case within the jurisdiction of the Court; the other note was for $400, and the plaintiff claimed balance of interest at three per cent. per month, making a total of $544. The promissory notes were given under the fol- lowing circumstances. In February, 1892, an action was commenced in this court by the plaintiff against the defendant to recover $2,100. A settlement of the case was effected out of court through the intervention of Mr. Hastings, plaintiff's solicitor. The plaintiff received $1,100 out of court, and the defendant gave plaintiff a promissory note for $1,000, with interest at three per cent. per month. In consideration of the settlement defendant gave plaintiff another promissory note for $400, with interest at three per cent,per month. The notes were drawn up by Mr. Hastings and witnessed by him.
|
·|
|
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
The plaintiff was a long way from the city and he entrusted the notes to Priam Singh, a gunner in the Asiatic Artillery, and asked him to collect the interest from the defendant. When recently the plaintiff applied to Priam Singh for the notes he said he had lost them, and it was under these circumstances that the plaintiff came into court to sue upon the notes. If the defence was that the money had been paid the plaintiff knew nothing about it, and Priam Singh had no authority whatever to make a settlement. A formal application was made to the defendant for payment and his answer was simply a denial that he owed the money, and Priam Singh had denied that the notes were handed to him.
Mr. Hastings, solicitor, proved drawing up the promissory notes and handing them to plaintiff in settlement of the suit in February, 1892.
Priam Singh, who appeared on a subpoena, said the notes were not in his possession.
Ajan Singh, the plaintiff, said he was an ex- policeman and watchman at the Taikoo Sugar Works. Up to a year ago he had the promis- sory notes in his possession He used to give them to Priam Singh to collect the interest from the defendant. The last time he gave them to him was about a year ago. When wit- ness was told that the notes were lost Priam Singh said "Don't make a noise; I'll give you another one. If the defendant hears of it he will make a noise." Witness had received in terest on each of the notes for two years, but no part of the principal. He had not given authority to Priam Singh to receive the prin- cipal, and he had not sold or transferred the notes to Priam Singh or to anyone else.
Cross-examined by Mr. Dennys-Priam Singh told me some time ago in the afternoon that he had lost the notes. It was about five months ago when we were near the Mc- Gregor Barracks, and Priam Singh said "Keep quiet, and I'll get you another." Witness be- lieved what Priam Singh told him. The interest he was getting was $42 a month up to two years ago. He thought it was thirteen or fourteen months ago since he last received any interest. He had lent money before but kept no accounts. Mr. Dennys-Where did you get this $2,100 from?
Witness-I served in Hongkong 22 years. Mr. Dennys-You saved all that out of your pay as a policeman i
Witness-It was all my savings.
J
|
|
197
Ajan Singh about ten years. Witness had never asked Li Hong Mi for any money, and had never got any money from him. He had never asked Li Hong Mi's friends for any money. He had never had any money transaction with Ajan Singh, and had never received any money from him.
Mr. Francis Think again. Have you lost your memory or is your head going wrong ?
Witness No; my head is not going wrong. Mr. Francis-Have you lent any money to anybody?
Witness-No.
In answer to further questions witness said he knew nothing about the suit in 1892, and as far as he knew there was no such suit. Ajan Singh had not handed him the two promissory notes to collect the interest; it is not true that he told Ajan Singh he had lost the notes.
His Lordship What is your position now, Mr. Francis? Of course I do not want to interfere, but have you any more witnesses like this one P
Mr. Francis-No, my lord, I have no other witness, but I ask leave to put Mr. Hastings in the box again as Priam Singh has sworn that he has not had the notes.
His Lordship-This man takes a different line altogether. On the face of it it looks as if he had something to do with it. His evidence is rather against your case.
Mr. Francis-It is against us only on the production of the promissory notes.
His Lordship pointed out that Mr. Francis's position was a difficult one, and Mr. Francis admitted it was; he anticipated such a position. But there was distinct evidence that the promis- sory notes for these amounts were given by Li Hong Mi in favour of the plaintiff in 1892, and the plaintiff was not in a position to produce the notes. He says he has not got them and that they are lost.
His Lordship-He was trying to prove them. Mr. Francis-He is.
His Lordship And he has failed. I am just as much entitled to believe Priam Singh as the plaintiff himself.
Mr. Francis-I was obliged to call him, my lord. I ask your lordship to call upon the de- fendant to produce the notes. I will put the defendant into the box.
Mr. Dennys-I cannot object to the de- fendant being called. If Mr. Francis likes to call him as a witness he can.
Mr. Francis-I ask your Lordship's leave to Mr. Dennys-Was that all you had at the put in secondary evidence as to the existence of time ?
Witness I had more than that. Mr. Dennys How much more? Witness-$1,500.
His Lordship-There is a gentleman-an In dian-in Court now, who has been in the Govern- ment Service only eleven years and he has saved $13,000.
Mr. Dennys-During the last thirteen or fourteen months have you ever applied to Mr. Li Hong Mi for payment of this money?
Witness Mr. Li Hong Mi wrote to me two. or three months ago asking me to come up and see him as Priam Singh was giving him trouble about the interest.
Mr. Dennys-Have you applied to Mr. Li Hong Mi during the last thirteen or fourteen months P
Witness-I did not ask him as I had not got the papers.
Mr. Dennys-Did not the $2,100 which you originally sued for belong to Priam Singh ?
Witness-Priam Singh took the money from me; $1,800 belonged to Priam Singh, and $300 to Akbar Singh.
Mr. Dennys-So the money wasn't yours at all?
Witness-I paid the money to Priam Singh. Mr. Dennys-It was really yours money then ?
2.
Witness-It was all mine.
Mr. Dennys-If you believed. Priam Singh when he told you he had lost the notes why, in last August, did you get your lawyer to write to Priam Singh for the return of the notes ?
Witness-I believed when Li Hong Mi wrote to me that Prism Singh had the notes; I changed my mind, and I do not believe they are lost.
Priam Singh, was re-called, and said he was a gunner in the Asiatic Artillery. He had known
the notes
His Lordship-I do not think you are entitled. Mr. Francis-Then I will call Li Hong Mi, Your Lordship is of course entitled prima facie to believe the last witness as much he Ajan Singh. At the same time when your Lordship finds that the last witness positively denied that he had the promissory notes, while there were such notes, I ask your Lordship to say that the last witness's evidence is not reliable, and to believe that, as between these two men, Priam Singh is in a position to produce the two documents. The plaintiff has a prima facie case established that these notes were in exist- ence, and for some reason of his own Priam Singh has denied that he had ever had them.
Li Hong Mi said-I admit giving the two promissory notes. I have paid the money in full and destroyed the notes. I paid the money to Ajan Singh in April, 1893. He called
at my house and I paid him there. I cannot say whether anyone saw those notes in my possession. I tore them up in the presence of the plaintiff. I lately applied to Ajan Singh for à loan of $1,000 for the ex- compradore of the steamship Bygdo. I did not get that loan. Since I paid off the two notes I do not think I have had any other transactions with him. The following letter dated April 9th, 1895, I sent to plaintiff—“ Please call and see me about the two promissory notes at any time convenient to you, and oblige." Those two notes referred to "two loan of $100 - each which I obtained from two Indians for the compradore of the Bygdo. I wrote to Ajan Singh because be had something to do with the transaction. I discharged one of the notes yesterday and the other is in Ajan Singh's possession.
Mr. Francis-I do not see that I can go further, my Lord. The evidence is against me