THE MERCHANT SKIPPING LAW8. The Council went into Committee on the -Bill entitled an Ordinance to consolidate and smend the Law relating to Merobant Shipping, The duties of the Harbour Master, the control and management of the waters of the colony, and the regulation of vessels navigating the same.
|
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
SUPREME COURT.
27th Nov.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR W. MEIGH GOOD- MAN (Acting Chief Justice).
THE CENTRAL STORES OF SHANGHAI LIMITED AND REDUCED,
The ACTING ATTORNEY-GENBRAL—I would like to draw attention to clause 41 of the Stand- ing Orders, which says:-" When a Bill shall -have been referred to, and reported on by, one Mr. Pollock (instructed by Mr. Wei On, of of the Standing Committees appointed under Messrs. Johnson, Stokes, and Master) said he Rula 48, and it shall be certified by the Chair- appeared for the Central Stores of Shanghai, man of such Standing Committee that such Limited and Reduced, who were applying to the Bill has been considered clause by olause in court under section 11, Ordinance 1 of 1877, the presence of all the Members of such | which said:-"A company which has parsed a Standing Committee at least and that, in the special resolution for reducing its capital may opinion of the Committee, such Bill may be apply to the court by petition for an order con- dealt with by the Council in the same manner as firming the reduction, and on the hearing of a Bill reported on by a Committee of the whole the petition the court-if satisfied that with Council, such Bill may be dealt with accordingly respect to every creditor of the company who, if no Member object, but if any Member object under the provisions of this Ordinance, is the Bill shall be dealt with in the same manner entitled to object to the reduction, either his As a Bill reported on by a Special Committee." | consent to the reduction has been obtained or This Bill, air, has been considered by the his debt or claim has been discharged or has Standing Law Committee, which has held no determined or has been secured as hereinafter less than eight sittings to consider it. It has provided-may make an order confirming the been reported by me as chairman of the Stand-reduction on such terms and subject to such ing Law Committee that at such meetings the conditions as it deems fit." His Lordship Bill was considered clause by clause in the pre- would see that the petition was presented by sence of all the members of such Standing Law the company to the court on the 14th Septem- Committee, and that in the opinion of such ber last, and directions had been obtained with Standing Law Committee such Bill may be regard to ascertaining who were the creditors dealt with by the Council in the same manner of the company. An affidavit had been filed As a Bill reported on by a committee of the by Mr. Edney Page to the effect that on the Whole Conncil. Therefore, unless any hon. 1st November there was no claim against the ourable member has any objection, I would pro- company other than the accounts of the our pose that the Bill be dealt with as a Bill report rent month, which did not exceed $2,500, and ed on by a committee of the whole Council, and that there was to the balance of the company I move that the amendments suggested by the in the Bank more than that sum available with committes be adopted.
which to pay the debts.
The COLONIAL SECRETARY 'seconded. The Hon. T. H. WHITEHEAD-May I ask if the suggestions from the Chamber of Commerce have been embodied P
The ACTING ATTORNEY-GENERAL-Some of them have been embodied but not all. I can Lesure the honourable member that all the sug- gestions of the Chamber of Commerce were very carefully considered-indeed,
The motion was carried.
|
His Lordship granted the order asked for. The resolation His Lordship was asked to confirm was one reducing the capital of the Company from $200,000 to $91,845.
29th November
IN APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
|
*Decem
by the said bye law. Mr. Hoope and fined $10 in respect, of houses, so that he submitted that this was in fact an appes separate and distinot convictions.
The Acting Chief Justice – What you really want is a decision as to whether "the owner. in that bye-law came under the definition or not given in the Public Health Ordin. ance. In the Public Health Ordinance says. “any house-owner, or the person for, time being receiving the rent of any promis solely or as joint tenant, or tenant in comme with others, or receiving the rent of any mises whether on his own behalf or that of any other, person or where the owner cannot be found or ascertained the occupier, and for the purpose of this Ordinance every mortagagee in
ion shall be deemed an owner.
Mr. Francis-That is practically the anl stance of the whole case.
The Paisne Judge-Is there any, further question about Mr. Shelton Hooper' responsibility,
Mr. Francis-That arises on ́the very face of the decision.
Mr. Pollock contended that that was not Mr. Francis said their Lordships - wo observe that the Magistrate had found it an fact that the Land Investment Company were the owners of these premises. There was no finding of fact with reference to Mr. Shelton Hooper, and yet the Magistrate convicted him after recording the Land Investment Company were the owners of these premises.' He sub. mitted that the conviction of Mr. Hopper re- corded in this case wa: impossible.
The Acting Chief JusticeThat is not the point taken here. We have to give our opinion on the point of law as to whether the Land Investment Company are the owners in the meaning of the Ordinance.
Mr. Francis repeated that the finding.... that the Land Investment Company: were the owners and yet Mr. Hooper, against whom there was no such finding, was convicted.
The Acting Chief Justice said the Land In vestment Company appeared by Mr. Hooper, and if Mr. Hooper was not prepared to take the consequences he should have taken an ob. jotion and asked that instead of his being anm-
· The marginal notes were then read and the Bill BEFORE HIS HON. W. MeiGH GOODMAN mond the Company should be summoned:
passed through the committee stage without comment.
The Council then resumed. The Council adjourned until Thursday next.
FINANCE COMMITTER. A meeting of the Finance Committee was held immediately after the Council meeting, the Colonial Secretary presiding.
The CHAIRMAN-I have only one finanical minute to bring before the Committee to-day, and that is one in which he Governor rocom- mends the Council to yote a sum of four thous sand dollars in aid of the vote "Maintenance of "Buildings.” With regard to this vote the honourable the Director of Public Works reports Authat “extensive works of renewal at Government House have rendered the inoresse necessary. The total amount of the vote is $30.00.), and of this $10,609-90 has been spent on Government House. · ·It is obvious that a vote intended to scover the maintenance of buildings dumbering about 165 in all could not bear so large a vote in respect of one building. I estimate that a further anm of $4,000 will be required to defray the charges incured in the vote, and I therefore ⠀irequesti that a supplemental vote for that sum be obtained. I may add that I expect there -will be a corresponding saving under miscel-
laneous works,”
The rote was agreed to. This was all the business..
The cases of communicable disease reported last week were one of diphtheria, three of enterio fever, two of puerperal' fever, and one "doïth from plague, the latter case having been reported on the 15th November.
A telegram from Baub, dated 16th November, "Bukit Koman. No, 1 North Engine Have struck reef carrying good gold. age width of lode is 9 feet. Consider this
very importan
(ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) and His HON, A. G. WISE (Puisne Judge).
SHELTON HOOPER APPELLANT V. BRETT
RESPONDENT.
This was an appeal brought by Mr. A. Shelton Hooper, Secretary of the Hongkong Land In- vestment and Agency Co., Limited, against the decision of Mr. H. Gompertz, Acting Police Magistrate, who had imposed a fine of $10 in each case in consequence of certain houses (nine in number) in Sun Street and Moon Street owned by the Company not having been lime- washed during the months of July and Augnst last. Sanitary Inspector Brett, who laid the information against Mr. Hooper, was the respondent.
The point was further argued, but their Lord- ships held to their previous ruling that the only point of law submitted to them, was as to the meaning of the word "owner" as used in the Ordinance, and consequently the other point was allowed to drop.
Mr. Francis, continuing his address, said the word "owner" meant the person who had the power in his own hands of disposing of the property as he pleased within the limits of his rights, whatever they might happen to There might be a number of persons in succes sion-whether it was six or whether two-who might be fairly designated owners of the property as they were in receipt of rents and profits out of that property, and they would have to select which of these persons Mr. J. J, Francis, Q.C, (instructed by Messrs. was intended by Ordinance to be made respon Deacon and Hastings) appeared for appellant sible. In the first place there was the Crown. Of and the Hon. H. E. Pollock, Acting Attorney-course apart from the operation of the general General (instructed by Mr. Bowley, Acting | rule that the Crown was not affected or bound Crown Solicitor) for respondent.
by Ordinances unless specially mentioned the Mr. Francis said this was an appeal from the Crown was as much the owner in reversion of decision of the Magistrate on a question of law. this house and ground as the Land Investment The appeal was from a conviction made uuder Company. The Land Investment Company had the provisions of the Public Health Ordinance, got a lease from the Crown and within the tarma No. 24 of 1887, section 18, and the bye-law of the lease had the power of disposing of that made by the Sanitary Board thereunder, this property as it pleased. The Company had part section enabling the Sanitary Board to make with the whole of its interests and power of bye-law with reference to the whitewash-control and right to interfere, for • limited ing of premises. On the 13th of August, number of years, that was, fire 1896, the Sanitary Board made a bye-law to another person Chu Wa. Chu" W. to the effect that any house or blook of the person who had the management and con houses occupied by members of more than one trol and the actual letting of the houses. family should, unless specially exempted by received and collected the rents from the tensat the Banitary Board, be cleansed and lime-washed in actual occupation, and he submitted to 1 by "the owner" to the satisfaction of the Board lordships that for the purposes of this Orlin. not less than twice every year. The case turned ance, in common parlance
"This that man was the owner for on the meaning of the word “owner.'
Mr. Fr bye-law was approved by the Legislative Council of these houses. on the 3rd December, 1896. The appellant in quote cases in support of his
Mr. Pollock submitted that this case was served with nine summonses and called upon to answer why he should not be pun his learned friend would reilly ished for not having whitewashed certain pre- in determining the proven a mises in Sug Street and Moon Street during words " any house-owner
the int the months of July and August last as required any
|
||
}
"