September 2, 1899.]
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
complainant did not seem disposed to enter into instalments at the rate of 80 per cent. of the the bargain but they talked to him and value of the work done and materials supplied, induced him to weigh up the fish, and upon production of a certificate from the archi- finally he handed it over to them. The teots showing the value of the work done and same afternoon the complainant went to the materials provided. Tsang Sam commenced shop, in his own boat, to have a talk about work and abandoned it on the 17th December, the price. He asked for the Hongkong price 1898, and left the colony. Up to that date the for his fish. Thoy haggled and did not agree plaintiff had paid to Tsang Sam sums amount- and he went away. The following morning|ing in all to $14,000 upon certificates signed by he went ashore in the big sampan, which he the defendants as architects. On the 17th hailed as it was going its round. He went to December, 1898, Trang Sam had in fact only the shop a second time and further haggling done work and provided materials to the took place, but no bargain was arrived at. Then value of $9,000, and should only have the man came away and in the afternoon re- received in respect thereof $7,200. The plain ported the matter to the police.
tiff in his petition alleged that the defendants through negligence and in breach of their duty to the plaintiff gave to Tsang Sam certificates enabling him to obtain from the plaintin the sum of $6,800 more than was properly due. The defendants in their answer stated that the amounts stated in their certificates as due and
The Acting-Chief Justice-It was admitted that this was the first transaction they had with this man, and he would not know their custom.
Mr. Robinson said that according to the evidence for the defence the matter was ex- plained to complainant.
The Acting Chief Justice said the court hadowing were estimated with due care and skill carefully looked into this matter, and they thought there ought to be a re-bearing. At a re-hearing the complainant was bound to sup port the conviction. They thought the justice of the case would be met by allowing the appeal on the re-hearing, but they did not allow any costs.
Mr. Justice Wise-I do not think you could get them.
Mr. Robinson We certainly could not. The Acting Chief Justice passed some stric- tures on the custom of going on board a poor mau's junk and taking his fish and then letting him see what price he could get for it after wards. It was like bis going into a shop in Hongkong and taking the first thing which suited him without saying "by your leave," and then when the shopkeeper came to know what he should pay for it to haggle about the price, and with his being in possession he would have an advautage.
The respondent was then formally called, but there was no answer.
and that between $17,000 and $18,000 was a fair estimate of the value of the work done and the materials supplied. The defendants denied that they were guilty of negligence or any breach of duty. Continuing, Mr. Robinson said that from this petition and answer the jury would have a rough idea of the case. The question which they would be asked and to which they would have to give an answer was this. On the 29th November, 1898, which was the date of the last certificate given by the architects, what proportion of work had been done and what quantity of materials had been supplied? If they gave the answer that so much work was done the rest was merely a matter of arithmetic-to find out whether any thing was overpaid and if so how much. Mr. Robinson proceeded to detail how Mr. Belilios came to build on the land in question. Some time in July, 1897, Mr. Belilios inspected the land in company with Mr. Palmer, and on the way Mr. Palmer pointed out certain houses which he said had been built for $1,200 each and were letting at $26 a month. Mr. Belilios, struck by what Mr. Palmer said, gave him instructions to prepare plans and specifications for building. Plans and specifications were prepared and tenders were invited. When the tenders came in it was seen that that of Tsang Sam was the lowest and that it was for $1,500 a house, or $19,500 altogether. Mr. Belilios was not pleased with this, and let the thing drop, but subsequently agreed to accept the tender, instructing the defendants, as the contractor could not find a surety, to always see that in paying for work and materials there was a margin in hand. On the 23rd February, 1898, the contract was signed, the contractor undertaking to have the work completed in a satisfactory and workmanlike manner by the 1st November, 1898. After dealing somewhat in detail with the different paragraphs in the con- tract, Mr. Robinson said that up to the 22nd This was a claim for $6,800 made by the June, 1898-some four month's after the sign- Hon. E. R. Belilios, C.M.G., upon Messrs. Paling of the contract-three certificates had been mer and Turner, civil engineers and architects, which he alleged they had improperly paid to a
The Acting Chief Justice had the owner of the fish shop called up, and he lectured him on the course he had adopted. He told him that the island of Ab Chau was now under British jurisdiction, and under British jurisdiction squeezing of poor fishermen was not allowed. He had no right to instruct his men to go and take fish whether a man wanted to sell or not.
29th August.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION. BEFORE HIS HONour W. Meigh GOODMAN (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) AND A SPECIAL JURY.
. BELILIOS V. PALMER AND TURNER.
contractor.V
Mr. E. Robinson (instructed by Messrs. Wil- kinson and Grist) appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. M. W. Slade (instructed by Messrs. John- son, Stokes, and Master) for the defendants.
The special jury was composed of Messrs. J. J. B. Heemskerk, E. S. Whealler, P. E. H. Melbye, R. H. Hill, John Barton, H. U. Jeffries, and F. G. Collins.
Mr. Robinson said the usual custom was to commence by reading the pleadings, and he would now proceed to read the petition and answer, The petition stated that in or about the month of February, 1898, the plaintiff employed the de- fendants to prepare plans and specifications for the erection on Kowloon Inland Lot No. 758, at Yaumati, of 13 Chinese houses, and to obtain tenders and prepare a contract for the erea tion of the houses. A contract was entered into between the plaintiff and a contractor named Tsang Sam, whereby the latter agreed to complete the 13 Chinese houses in a workman- like manner and with the best materials on or about the 1st November, 1898, according to the plans and specifications prepared by the defend ants. It was further agreed that the plaintiff should pay to Tsang Sam for the full and perfect completion of the houses the sum of $19,500, and that payment should be made by monthly
|
granted by the defendants amounting altoge- ther to $1,000, or $1,000 a month. Up to then Mr. Palmer was in the colouy, and it was fairly evident that care had been taken not to over value the work done; care was taken that the contractor did not get more than 80 per cent. of the value of the work done and the
|
materials provided; but from the 22nd June to the 15th October-also a period of about four- months the contractor received $9,500, which was at the rate of about $3,000 a month. Be- tween the period when Mr. Palmer had care of the work and the period when Mr. Turner was in charge there was a very marked difference in the rate at which the money was paid out to the contractor, The last payment was made to the contractor on November 29th, which was nearly a month after the time within which it had been stipulated the work should have been completed. Subsequently Mr. Turner wrote Mr. Belilios stating that the work had been proceeding in an unsatisfactory manner for some weeks and that the high wind had brought down a portion of the walls. On December 15th the contractor asked for another certificate, and on this being refused [he replied that he could not get any tiles until he had got some money. Then steps were taken to ar- range with someone else to complete the work. According to the certificates work had been done and materials supplied to the value of
༄་ ་་ཎྜཱ,
$17,500. Deducting this sum from $19,500 left $2,000, and Mr. Belilion ought been able to get the work · completed that sum, and in addition he ought to $3,500 in hand, as it was ärin 80 per cent. of the value of the work and materials supplied should be paid ly; but when tenders came in the was for $10,700. On the 8th March Balilios went over to Yaumati himself to at the work, and he was very much. with what he saw. He found nothing shell-bare walls and absolutely nothi them. He accordingly wrote the defe saying that he was dissatisfied and that they had been grossly negligent certified for more than was due that the of the work done and materials supplied nothing like $17,500. Hence the action.
Evidence for the plaintiff was then called. The further hearing was adjourned.
·30th August.
The plaintiff, who gave his evidence, the previous day, again entered the witness and with the permission of his Lordship Mr. Blade put a few more questions to him. He replied that when Mr. Danby surveyed the premises for him he made a report to him in writing. The report was in his advocate's hands.
Mr. Slade asked for the report to be produced. Mr. Robinson refused to produce it on the ground of privilege. When Mr. Danby w the box it would be produced.
Mr. Slade said that if Mr. Robinson would nndertake to produce Mr. Danby's report and also Mr. Harker's report later on he would waive his right to call for them now.
Mr. Robinson refused to give any undertak- ing except that he could produce those parts of the reports giving estimates of the value of the work done to the building.
The report of Mr. Danby was handed to his Lordship, who, after he had perused it, held that Mr. Slade was entitled to have it produced.
Mr. Robinson-Will your Lordship note my strong objection to that?
His Lordship Yes. ̄¡
Subsequently his Lordship observed to Mr. Slade-Except you have some authority I think you are asking for more than you are entitled to.
Mr. Slade--I think the authorities are per fectly clear.
His Lordship-Find me one or two, Mr. Slade—I think I can find them rather quickly.
His Lordship said he would consult with Justice Wise as to whether Mr. Slade, entitled toithe production of the reports of Mi Danby and Mr. Harker.
The point, however, was settled by Mr. Robin- son agreeing to put in the report on the witne08 being perfectly satisfied with this.
Li Ah Ping, a contractor, said he had in- spected Mr. Balilios's houses at Yaumati with the object of sending in a tender for their com- pletion and valuing the work already done. He valued the work done and gave the Agure to Mr. Balilios. He then sent in a tender to complete the work. His first tender was for $11,700, but he ultimately agreed to do the work for $11,250.
The case was further adjourned and in still proceeding.
INTERESTING FUNCTION AT GOVERNMENT HOUSE
SIR THOMAS JACKSON PRESENTED
WITH HIS LETTERS PATENT. A
On the invitation of His Excellency Governor (Sir Henry Blake, G.O.M.G.), * and representative company assembled at Go ernment House on Wednesday for the witnessing an interesting and unique so far an Hongkong is concerned, presentation to Sir Thomas Jackson, agar of the Hongkong and Shanghai the letters patent conferring on him of knighthood.
Viscount BUTRDALE (His Excel Secretary)
aloud the insori on vall
Great Seal of