(HCHANGE DOINGSTOW
****Compared with a few years back, the total amount of capital invested in local industries and institutions swelled up enormously, as is shown in our share list. So too the number of investors has increased and multiplied, and may now be said to form a goodly portion of the general publiö. An occasional peop in the mysteries of Change Doings in your columns would not, therefore, prove uninteresting to some of your readers, and I trust you will find, this sufficient excuse for my intrusion on your valuable space, *** The year 1900 is dead. ness is concerned, it has not been an unmixed blessing. There are those who bless its memory, and there are those who are not doing that at any rate, But if I mistake not, the former are in the majority. On the whole, it has certainly ended better than it began.
no
MD as share busi
::
In its early days, we bad our full share of the air of uncertainty then pervading, one might say, almost the whole British Empire. Events in South Africa had come to a deadlock, and one could say what the morrow might bring forth. That touchstone of the financial and political world, Consols, were bobbing up and down like barometer in a coming storm, Naturally our stocks here followed suit. Business was almost at a standstill, and financial facilities there were none.
When the relief came, in the e shape of better news from South Africa, it had very little effect on our market, as money was extremely tight, and capitalists would not grant reasonable terms. However, between March and June there were signs of a better feeling, when, down came the thunderbolt from the North, and it was during that acute crisis that the lowest point was touched. Thus money tighter still, and business remained stagnant. That some Companies should have thought fit to call up more capital at such a time was really surprising, but it speaks volumes for their soundness that the calls were guccessfully met by those concerned.
"As the last quarter of the year was drawing near a rift in the clouds became visible, doubt less the approaching return of our great financier having a good de il to do with it.
Be that as it may, the improvement went on until by the end of the year things were pretty lively, substantial advanças having taken place in all the leading stocks, and the tone of the money market being decideally the
During the year two new companies were successfully floated, and, I have it from good authority, both are doing well,
Taking the year as a whole, I calculate there has been an appreciation of over five million dollars in our local investments.
It may not be out of place here to mention one or two stooks specially. The long-looked for advance in our premier institution has at last begun and no wonder, now that the master hand has gripped the reins. On dit that they have had a phenominally good half-year. If that be so, and there is no reason to doubt the report, happy those who "hang on to their shares.
alth 210 con
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
dence indeed, and the worst of it is that the sufferers are those who can ill afford such losses.
There is only one remedy to stop this drain ing of Hongkong Fortunately our leading men areas a rule public-spirited, and if they would not lend their countenance, such ventures are bound, sooner or later, to dis appear from our midst, and the sooner the better.ily (41 taong laut ord tilla,
mailing hold at
is
ma
SUPREME COURT.
i
Fattah i-Thursday, 10th January, and
ME, IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR JOHN CABRING- POFTON, C.M.G. (CHIEF JUSTICE)......
January 12 1901
reserved in the alleged lease, but at rate,
885, in lien of $72. of ren
not at the end
during an odd, month, during the alleged 30 years.
in law that could only have one and that this operated as a law of the 30 years lease, one, and was a fresh demise of at a monthly rent of $85. His friend with him that on the facts as stated in the ings the plaintiff was entitled to take po
Mr. Robinson said the facts were undoubtedly l as they appeared upon the pleadings. There was no gerting over that. If the defendants failed to prove their lease the plaintiff, was entitled to judgment. To recapitulate the facts very briefly, there was, as the de- fendants alleged, a lease of these premises granted to them for 30 years. During the cur- rency of that period in fact about five years after it began the defendants lost, or mislaid their lease, and were perhaps foolish enough to notify the lessor that they had lost it and to ask him for a duplicate. He, as they alleged, took advantage of that circum. stance practically to deny the existence of the lease and to raise the rent and to treat the tenancy as a monthly one only. They were not in a position at the moment of being able to prove the lease, and, rather than go out, paid the money under protest, under duress, I
The Chief Justice You do not say in terms you paid under protest; you say so in effect,
LIWUN V. THE WING FUNG TAI FIRM, The plaintiff in his petition said he was the owner of No. 19, Jervois Street, and resided in the Shung Chun village in the Sun Hing dis- trict of the Kwangtung Province. The defen- dants carried on business at No. 19, Jervois Street. On or about the 12th March, 1899, the plaintiff let to the defendants the house No. 19, Jervois Street, at a rental of $85 per Chinese mouth at a monthly tenancy. The defendants took possession of the house and continued as tenants until the 15th March, 1900, when the tenancy was deter mined by a notice to quit duly given to the defendants on the 15th February, 1900. The defendants had disregarded the said notice and still retained possession of the house. The plaintiff therefore humbly prayed: (1) that the defendants be ordered to deliver to the plaintiff possession of the house No. 19, Jervois street; (2) that the defendants be ordered to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $500 as mesne profits from the 15th day of March, 1900; (3) that the plain tiff may have such further and other relief as to this honourable court seems meet
(+
41
In their answer, the defendants contended that the plaintiff was merely the owner of the equity of redemption of the property known as 19, Jervois Street. The defendants denied taking possession of the house, No. 19, Jervois Street, on or about the 12th March, 1899, but admitted receiving on or about the 15th Feb., 1900, from the plaintiff's solicitor, a notice calling upon them to quit and deliver up possession the premises on the 15th The defendants said they entered into possession of 19, Jervois Street, on or about the 18th Oct., 1895, under or by virtue of a lease or agreement for lease for a term of 30 years. The rent made payable by the defen dants under the lease was $72 per Chinese month and addition one half-dollar shoe money per Chinese month. The defendants duly paid the monthly rent of $72 and one half-dollar for shoe money from the 18th Oct., 1895, to the 11th March, 1899, and the plaintiff duly accepted the same. In or about the month of January, 1899, the defendants having mislaid the lease inform ed the plaintiff and asked him to furnish them with a but the plaintiff declared that he had lost his copy, and on or about the 12th March, 1899, required the defendants to pay their rent for the said premises at the rate of $85 per Chinese month or in the alter
=
Mr. Robinson, continuing, said they said so in effect, but the point raised by his friend was that in law that operated as a surrender of the old lease, and it was on that point that his friend's argument signally failed. Mr Slade argued that the necessary implication from the conceding of the demand was that they agreed to surrender, but that was contrary, he submitted, to the plain fact, because it was not the only implication. There re mained the other implication that they were not in a position to resist the demand, and there- fore were obliged to concede it, but without any agreement to surrender the lease and without acceptance of a new contract. That was the point Mr. Slade argued that by operation of law it must be taken that they accepted a new contract and concelled the old one. The defen- set out in a their dants argued that the facts answer showed that they acted under dures and not by way of contract geluksz führe lied
Mr. Slade submitted that a verbal demise in regard to a monthly tenanoy was a perfectly good demise; and the mere fact of occupancy of tenancy and payment of monthly rent in law. operated as an actual demise of such premises at a monthly tenancy.
The Chief Justice-Supposing I were with you and held that on the pleadings you were entitled to judgment, what would become of the alleged lease, supposing the lease existed Pavés
Mr. Slade It is quashed for allsrud on. The Chief Justice That would be the effect of your contention, aliaqued
Mr. Slade said his contention was that the lease had been surrendered for a monthly tenanoy which was in existence up to the 15th March and which had been put an end to by a valid notice to quit. In reference to the argument that this was done under duress this was not pleaded. In their answer the defendants did not set up a set of
There is a sigh of relief all round, the Dock Company having decided to split their shares. The shares of this company had become too
to handle, owing to their immense native to give up possession: The defon- | fact which amounted to duress in law, and even and their sub-division was a positive The Conversion of the reserve capital is also a step in the right and the directors may well be con- on putting forward such a workable practical scheme,), ~wined vilkim Haying gone over an agreeable ground, I now come to a rather disagreeable portion of
I mean mining shares. I may mention: that in my estimate of the year's tion above given, I have not in. and par
sely so, as we cannot in them. investiments, veure? surprise many to know that of money have gone out of tures. It is too much to nge sums been legitimately iodical fits of tightness would not have occur. be extant they have lest, twelve months otals over 33 millions. Eloquent evi
fer, from
|
dants fearing lest under the circumstances they might be unable successfully to resist a suit for the recovery of the premises paid the wrongful demand of $85 per Chinese month on the 9th April, and continued to pay at such wrongful rate until the 30th Jan, 1900, since which date they had tendered and offered to pay the rent reserved by the lease,” but the plaintiff had positively refused to accept the same,
Mr. M. W, Slade, (instructed by Messrs, Wilkinson and Grist) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. E. Robinson (instructed by Mr. H. K. Holmes) for the defendants. →
Mr. Slade submitted that on the pleadings, which he road, he was entitled to judgment as regarded ejectment -
— on the admissions con- tained in the defendants answer. The defen- dants set out that in 1895 a lease for 30 years was granted,” which, however, the plaintiff absolutely denied. The defendants admitted on their pleadings that from the 11th March onwards they paid rent not at the rate
|
if, those facts did amount to duress and ho submitted that they did not it could only make the lease a voidable one, and that on the face of nearly a the pleadings had been forfeited year. The facts set up in the answer only amounted to a statement of intention when the defendants accepted this increase of rent.
Mr. Robinson asked leave to amend wer by adding the words "under protest the words “wrongfully" and before I demand of $85 per Chinese month,
Mr. Slade did not object and the
added.
After some further argumenty, The Chief Justice, said the Mr. Slade went to the root
of some nicety
ought.. decida thought he ought to take some time,
The hearing was according
hen his Ford Wednesday next. his decision on the point.
Page 10Page 11