March 18, 1899 |
and then weut out and formed a practice. He put such solicitor on the same footing as a full blown solicitor who comes direct from England and starts as a solicitor. A solicitor who comes as a clerk to a firm of solicitors comes on the recommendation of people in England who have probably known him from childhood. They have studied him, they have studied bis character, and recommended him to a firm of solicitors in this colony. Consequently there is some safegnard with regard to him, but it is quite different in a full-blown solicitoro miqg bere and starting practice within a fortnight of his arrival.
The motion was then put and carried.
The ACTING ATTORNEY-GENERAL suggested that as he would not be present at the next meeting of the Council it would be advisable for the Standing Orders to be suspended so that the Bill could be read a third time. He pro- posed that the stauling orders be suspended,
The ACTING COLONIAL SECRETARY Second. ed, and the motion was passed.
The Hon. E. R. BELILIOS-I would request you to postpone the third reading of the Bill until the solicitors have had their say on the subject.
The ACTING ATTORNEY-GENERAL · The standing orders having been suspended I beg Isave to move the third reading of the Bill,
The COLONIAL SECRETARY seconded. A division was then taken at the request of the Hon. B. &. Balilios, and every member of the Council, except the Hon. E. R. Balilios, voted in favour of the motion, which was accordingly carried.
The Council then adjourned sine dig
SUPREME COURT.
11th March.
IN APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
BEFORE SIR JOHN CARRINGTON (CHIEF JUSTICE), AND Mr. Justice Wise (PUISNE JUDGE).
THE HARDOON-BELILIOS CASE.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
court were adopted. They were not clear at present that they had power to grant the appeal. It was agreed to adopt the suggestion of the court, and Monday next was fixed for the hearing of the application.
13th March.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION,
BEFORE SIR JOHN CARRINGTON (CHIEF JUSTICE) AND A SPECIAL JURY.
THE FILIPINOS AND THE HONGKONG AND
SHANGHAI BANK.
In this case Crisauto Lichanco and Gregorio Agoncillo, as attornies of Emilio Aguinaldo, sought to obtain possession of $200,000 now in the onstody of the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, which sum was deposited in the Bank by Emilio Aguinaldo on the 3rd January last year.
Mr. M. W. Slade (instructed by Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist) appeared for plaintiffs and Mr. J. J. Francis, Q.C. (instructed by Messrs. Johnson, Stokes, and Master) for defendant.
|
|
|
219
Wo
tors for the Bank (Messrs Johnson, Stokes, and Master) wrote a letter in which they stated he might say very clearly—the posi- tion which they adopted. This letter, which was dated January 30th, was as follows- In handing you copy of the defendants' answer herein, we again beg to remind you that our clients have always been ready and willing to pay over to your clients, Messrs Crisanto Li $200,000 on deposit in the Bank's hands to the chanco and Gregorio Agoncillo, the sum of credit of Mr. Emilio Aguinaldo, with the accrued interest thereon, upon being satisfied by any reasonable evidence that the persons named in the endorsement on the deposit receipt any interest in the monies in question, have were only agents for collection or if they took released or reassigned such interest, and upon being satisfied that the power of attorney your clients hold was in fact executed by Emilio Aguinaldo. A very simple amendment or ad- ditional declaration from the U.S. Consul in Aguinaldo will suffice on the second point, or Manila that he is personally acquainted with even a declaration from the U.S. Consul Gen eral here that Mr. Williams is well acquainted with Aguinaldo and could not possibly have The following composed the jury:-Messrs.
certified as he has done if Aguinaldo himself had not executed the instrument. As to the J. M. Beattie (foreman), A. F. Smith, E. first, Osborne, A. Babington, W. Dauby, E. 8.
8 declaration from Vito Belarmino Wheallar, and Douglas W. Craddock.
or Felipe Agoncillo will amply suffice. It Beems to us that if this suit comes to Mr. Slade commenced by reading the trial you will have to procure all this same petition, which recited that on the 3rd of evidence and more at the very great cost of January, 1898, Aguinaldo lent the Bank $200,000, which was to be repaid together You can now obtain it very quickly and at a a commission and with very great delay. with interest at the rate of 4 per cent., on the 3rd of January, 1899.
trifling cost, and the Bank's agent in Manila In their answer
or Iloilo can be instructed to render all assist- to the petition the Bank admitted having re- fused to pay the money to Crisanto Lichanco refusal, we give you express notice that any ance possible. If you still persist in your aud Gregorio Agoncillo, on the ground that claim on your clients' part to costs will be they were not satisfied that they were the duly resisted and this letter and previous corres- authorised attornies of Aguinaldo. Continuing, pondence will be used in evidence. Mr. Slade said the jury would have gathered suggest for your consideration that the opinion fairly clearly from the pleadings what the na- of the Court on the answer might easily be ture of the case was, but he thought they would taken on a motion by the plaintiff to strike it hardly have gathered how little there was for out on the ground that in your opinion it dis- them to decide upon. They had been brought closes no defence. To any judgment or order facts. The law was for his lordship to decide. there by the defendant Corporation to judge of the Court obtained in that way after argu. The facts in this case were very largely admit- Could the jury imagine that the United States
ment the defendant is fully prepared to submit.' ted by both sides, and to thought they Cousul in Manila did not know Aguinaldo very would find that the number of facts which they would have to decide would be well that Mr. Williams, the American Consul well? Did not every man in the Bank know. very small, while the extent of legal argu- ment to which they would have to listeu bance, had numerous dealings with Aguinaldo at Manila during the time of the late distur
the simplest nature. In January of last year The one thing which the would be very great. The facts were really of himself, and must know Aguinaldo well? Aguinaldo deposited with the Hongkong and
Bank required Shanghai Bauking Corporation the sum of he knew Aguinaldo, and they put that was a declaration from Mr. Williams that $290,000. That was to say, he lent that sum to forward as might have lent it to one of them or to anyone the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, just as he
a reason for not paying this money. The following answer was returned else, and be received a receipt in which the Wilkinson and Grist :-" In reply to
to this letter, dated Feb. 1st, by Messrs. terms were set out that the loan was to be for of the 30th ult., containing a repetition of the your letter one year, interest at 4 per cent, and the receipt statement which has been so frequently made The Chief Justice-I think it may shorten
was not transferable. The fact of that receipt by you, that your clients are willing to pay the matters we state what our view of the matter which could not be passed from one hand to plaintiffs' attorneys of certain conditions, we not being transferable made it an instrument claim in this sait upon the performance by the is. Our view is that we are quite willing if we have
another like a bill. Ou the 3rd of January power to grant leave to appeal-I think of this year, in accordance with the terms of said several times, that we have advised var can only in turn repeat what we have already that was indicated at the hearing of the appeal – but we feel some doubt whether we have power aldo sent two wen-plaintiffs in this case-to perform those conditions even though able to the loan, at the expiration of the year, Aguin- clients that they are under no obligation to to grant such leave, and we think it would be the Bank. They went to the Bank and pre. do so, which, having regard to the political more satisfactory if you will take an order sented a power of attorney and the original situation in the Philippines and the absence calling on the other side to appear and show deposit receipt and demanded the cause why leave should not be given. I am
money. from Manila and unknown whereabouts of aware that proceedings of this kind are general-uary 3rd, 1898, and bore the following entorse-
The deposit receipt in question was dated Jan- both Vito Belarmino and Felipe Agonciilo, is ly ex parte, but I think it would be more satis- ment, "Please pay the sum of $200,000 with for the service upon as of the answer in antiof. more than doubtful. We have been waiting factory if you consent to that course.
The Paisue Judge-You say you are making Felipe Agoncillo and Vito Belarmino." The take the course suggested in the last part of the premium called for by this receipt to Messrs.pation of the possibility of it enabling us to up the amount with interest. Will you tell me when was the call made?
power of attorney was signed by Emilio Aguin- your letter, but it must be perfectly obvious to aldo and also bore the signature of Mr. Ŏsoar you that as your counsel has thought fit to F. Williams. the U, S. Consal in Manila. deny that Senors Lichanco and Agoncillo are the endorsements upon the deposit receipt as an attorneys of the plaintiff, and also to describe order upon the Bank, without setting out the words of such endorsement, he has rendered it necessary that the suit should proceed to trial and advisable that we should file a replication." The remainder of the letter, Mr. Slade said, referred to the taking out of the replication. Practically the whole question for the jury to decide was whether or not this power of attornsy was executed by Aguinaldo. The document each came the certificate of Mr. Williams, the was signed in two places by Aguinaldo and under U.S. Consul at Manila, The jury would
The Hardoon-Belilios case was again brought before the court. notice having been given of an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council against the decison of the full court on February 28th, when an appeal brought by E. A. Hardoon was dismissed with costs. It was on the 19th May last that judgment was given against Mr. Hardoon, who brought an action against the Hon. E. R. Belilios, coutend ing that the latter was the true owner of certain shares and was liable by agreement or otherwise to indemnify him in respect of all calls on the shares.
The Hon. H. E. Pollock (instructed by Messrs. Mounsey and Brutton) appeared for Mr. Hardoon and Mr. E. Robinson (instructed by Messrs. Deacon and Hastings) for Mr. Be- lilios.
Mr. Pollock said the call was payable on the 15th November, 1895, and judgment was delivered in the High Court on June 27th, 1896. Of course with regard to the giving notice to the other side he thought it had been laid down by the court in the case of the Bank of China and Japan that that applica- tion was to be made ex parte, and the wording of the rules showed that they were entitled to a right of appeal if they proved themselves up to the appealable amount. There was nothing in the rules about giving any notice to the other side.
The Chief Justice said he thought it would be more satisfactory if the suggestion of the
|
on
to the power of attorney, adding that he knew Mr. Francis objected to Mr. Slade referring perfectly well they were going to object to the document.
to it generally subject to it being proved.
The Chief Justice said Mr. Slade might refer Mr. Franois admitted that he might refer to it generally but not to state the details. point,
After some little farther argument on the
Mr. Slade, continuing, said that on the Bank tion filed. In due course the Bank filed their declining to pay a writ was issued and the peti- answer, and with their answer the solici.