1
202
On the 3rd May, 1900, the debtors in Bank- ruptcies Nos. 5, 6, and 7 of 1900, namely Ho Pai Nam and Li Shing Cheong and Chan Sui Chuen and Cheong Kwai Cho were severally adjudicated Bankrupts and the Official Receiver was appointed Trustee in each Bankruptcy.
On the 9th July, 1900, on the application of the four non-resident partners of the firm an order was made dismissing the petition in Bankruptcy No. 8 of 1900, and ordering the Official Receiver to withdraw from possession of the estate of the firm.
Some correspondence then took place between Mr. Reece, as representing the non-resident partners, on the one side, and the Official Recei- ver and Messrs. Mounsey and Brutton, the solicitors for the petitioning creditors in Bank- ruptcies Nos. 6 and 7 of 1900, on the other. From this.correspondence it appears that, in compli- ance with the last-mentioned order, the Official Receiver withdrew from possession of the estate of the firm in Bankruptcy No. 8 of 1900, but remained in possession of it in Bankruptcies Nos. 6 and 7 of 1900 and presumably also in Bankruptcy No. 5 of 1904. In this corres- pondence Mr. Reece protested against a sale which the Official Receiver proposed to make of the goods, chattels, and furniture of the firm in these last-mentioned bankruptcies. The sale, however, took place on the 17th July, 1900. In the last letter of the correspondence, which is dated the 18th July, 1900, Messrs. Mounsey and Brutton informed Mr. Reece that Bank- ruptcies Nos. 5, 6, and 7 would be "adminis- tered strictly in accordance with the Bankruptcy Ordinance. I understand this assurance to mean that the joint estate of the firm and the separate estates of the four bankrupt partners will; respectively be administered in accordance with the rules laid down in the Bankruptcy Ordinance, 1891.
no
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
Messrs. Mounsey and Brutton were for Mr. Bruce Shepherd and Mr. J. F. Reece for the execution creditors.
.
13th September.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR JOHN CARBING- TON, C.M.G. (CHIEF JUSTICE).
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
IN THE MATTER OF THE TRADE MARKS OB-
DINANCE NO. 18 OF, 1898 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF NO LEE
HING FOR LEAVE TO REGISTER A TRADE
MARK THEREON,
The trial of issues from 3 to 10 (settled in chambers on Friday) in this suit was fixed for to-day, being exclusively on points of law.
In the Government Gazette of Feb. 25th and March 25th, 1899, a trade mark as to medicated wines was advertised by Ng Lee Hing, and notice of intention to oppose was given by Hung Man Yuk and Chu Guan Soon, of 41, Queen's Road West, on the grounds (1) that on the 4th of March they purchased the goodwill and trade marks of the Shu Chun Yuen firm at an auction held under a writ of execution and that they intended to carry on the business of such firm and use such trade marks in such business; (2) among the trade marks of the said Sha Chun Yuen firm was one con- sisting of a device of a Chinaman sleeping by the side of a basket out of which basket appear ed three bottles of wine; (3) the said trade mark had since 1887 or thereabouts been exclusively used by the Shu Chun Yuen firm in their an- nouncements as vendors of medicated wines.
Mr. J. J. Francis, Q.C. (instructed by Messrs. Deacon and Hastings) appeared for Ng Lee Hing, and Mr. Slade (instructed by Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist) for Hung Man Yuk and Chu Guan Soon.
Mr. Slade objected to the opinion of Mr. Pollock being put in, and also to the decision of the Governor,
His Lordship directed Mr. Francis to go on with his case.
|
[September 15, 1900.
Mr. Francis asked for the costs of this abor. tive hearing.
The question of costs was reserved and the court adjourned.
HONGKONG SANITARY BOARD.
On the 13th inst. a meeting of the Hong- kong Sanitary Board was held. Dr. Bell (Act- ing Principal Medical Officer) occupied the chair, and there were also present:-Mr. F. J. Badeley (Acting Captain Superintendent of Police), Mr. H. P. Tooker (Acting Director of Public Works), Mr. J. McKie, Dr. Hartigan, Dr. F. Clark (Medical Officer of Health), Mr. Fung Wa Chuen, Mr. Chan A Fook, and Mr. G, A. Woodcock (Secretary).
RINDERPEST AT KENNEDYTOWN.
The following letter, dated Sept. 4th, from the Colonial Veterinary Surgeon (Mr. Ladds) was submitted:-
I have the honour to report for the information of the Board an outbreak of rinderpest amongst a shed of cattle, the property of the Military authorities which are housed in the Government Depots at Kennedytown. All the animals show- ing signs of infection have been conveyed to the isolation shed, and those remaining have been fastened up in the shed to prevent their coming in contact with other animals. These will, when showing no signs of disease, be slaughtered for food as fast as possible and in this manner I hope to have the premises free from disease in a short time. Disinfection will be carried out as far as possible and I do not see that any further steps need be taken at present. This is not such a serious matter as an outbreak amongst dairy cows, as all animals which have been in contact with the diseased ones, but which show no signs of disease themselves, can be killed off for food. The Military authorities have been informed of the outbreak."
MOSQUITO AND MALARIA. Reports furnished by the Malaria Committee The of the Royal Society were submitted. following minutes were appended:-
larvæ must be continuous, for as soon as the measures are abated the larvie re-appears in the pools. A weekly application of paraffin is pro- bably the best treatment for such pools. (3) 'A far better plan for the extermination of mos- quitos than the treatment of the pools is proper lovelling and surface drainage so as to prevent formation of such pools. (4) Mosquitos ac- cumulate in dirty native hovels, and especially in matsheds (no native hut or matshed should, in my opinion, be allowed within half a mile of any decent dwelling which is inhabited). Mosquitos can live for considerable periods of time, eg. throughout the whole of the dry season, in grass shrubs and trees, and hence all undergrowth and excessive vegetation should be kept down, and the grass frequently cut, in the neighbourhood of dwellings. (6.) (lean, airy, and dry native quarters are essential for the protection of good class dwellings from mala-
(5)
If this impression is correct, there is hardly any point of sul stance in controversy be- tween the parties, because the claims of Mr. Reece's clients, who are creditors of the joint estate, will not be prejudiced by the claims against the separate estates of the four bankrupt partners. But on the point of pro- cedure Mr. Reece contends that the Official
Dr. Clark:- The first of these articles ap- Receiver as Trustee in the bankruptcies Mr. Francis said the questions for the de- pears to be as follows:-(1) Mosquitos are not of the four insolvent
partners has
cision of the court on this argument were: Were the only source of malaria in man (C. W. Dan- power to administer the joint estate of the his friend's clients at liberty, after having op-iels). (2) Any attempt to destroy mosquito firm without an order of the Court for that posed the registration of this trade mark before purpose. On the argument of the motion he the Attorney-General and after the ruling cited a number of cases in support of this con- of the Attorney-General against them and tention. Mr. Mounsey on the other hand relied after the decision of the Governor against upon section 34 (3) of the Bankruptcy Ordin them, to litigate the question again in that ance, 1891, which prescribes the mode in which Court in that suit? And the question was the joint estate of partners and the estate raised in two ways. First, was that which was of partners are respectively to be administered. done by Mr. Pollock equivalent to a reference But this sub-section forms part of a section to arbitration and an award by agreement of the whith relates to priority of payments in the parties, or would it in any way be entitled to be distribution of the property of a bankrupt, and described as a judicial proceeding? Secondly, the words in the sub-section "the joint estate assuming that there were certain proceedings of partners" have reference to the property of of a judicial or semi-judicial nature before Mr. a partnership, the members of which have been Pollock in connection with the question of this adjudicated bankrupt. This is not the case trade mark and between the same parties, was here; there has been no adjudication against the question which was brought up for discus- all the members of the firm, but only against sion before Mr. Pollock and on which he gave a some of them. The result then seems to be that decision or an opinion, the same question which under separate adjudications against four of was now in dispute in this suit? There was a the partners of the firm the Official Receiver further question whether, assuming that Mr. has entered into possession of and has sold the Pollock's opinion or decision could have no joint estate of all the partners, that is, the pro-effect by itself, the Governor's decision on Mr. perty of the partnership. His conduct in so taking possession and selling is not impeached by this motion, but it is alleged that he has no warrant in law for proceeding to a distribution of the joint estate without the express sanction of the Court. After a careful examination of the cases and authorities bearing on the point, I have come to the conclusion that this position is well founded and that the distribution of the joint assets must be made under the express authority of the Court. There will therefore be an order in the terms of the motion so far as it concerns this point. I do not think there is any need to direct an account to be taken of the property of the firm or an inquiry to be made as to the joint creditors, because I understand that the joint creditors have been required by advertisement in the usual way to come in and prove their claims against the joint estate. The order must be so drawn as to cover these pro- ceedings.
Ultimately His Lordship held that consider- The applicants and the Official Receiver musting Mr. Slade's opening it would not be fair to both have their costs in priority out of the consider the argument, as it would not be doing | joint estate.
justice to the plaintiffs.
or
the
ria."
Mr. Tooker:-"Very interesting; we ought to have more copies.”
Dr. Hartigan The P.W.D. should read. mark and inwardly digest page 151 as to level- At-ling and surface drainage and radical treatment of rock-ports. They might begin with the gully near Depot Inspector's quarters."
Pollock's report or opinion would be final ?— whether, in fact, his friend's clients, after having opposed before the Attorney-General,
Governor and before the torney-General as his delegate, the registra tion of this trade mark on the ground that they had no exclusive right or title to it, and it had been decided that they had an exclusive right or title to it, were not estopped by the practice in that court from again raising the same question, from again litigating in this suit, as they were identically the same question ? Mr. Francis put in the various statutory declarations, and the report of Mr. Pollock and the decision of His Excellency the Governor, which opinion and decision were in favour of his client.
Mr. Slade pointed out that his case now was not the same case as that which was decided by Mr. Pollock, and that he intended to call further evidence.
Mr. Badeley
suggest that one or two copies be bought and filed at the S.B. office:"
Dr. Bell: :-"Time required to read and ori- ticise this.'
*
Dr. HARTIGAN said that as to the suggestion that the Board ought to point out what should be done he would refer to the Fever Commission of 1886. He was not on it, though every other Various recommen- doctor in the colony was. dations had been made, but none of them were carried out.
The CHAIEMAN--As the copy is now here per- haps the Director of Public Works will have a look at it and also report on it.
LIMEWASHING RETURN. The Chief Sanitary Inspector (Mr. J. H. Dandy) in his fortnightly limewashing return
said:-
1.