September 14, 1901.]
'CHANGE DOINGS.
The Morrow of August Settlement,
Hongkong, 1901.
I
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
SUPREME COURT.
Tuesday, 10th September.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
by reason of the defendant having refused and failed to deliver to the plaintiff, upon demand made by a person in his behalf, a true copy of the warrant of commitment and detainer of the plaintiff.
The facts are that the plaintiff was dis charged from Victoria Gaol on the morning of
With the passing of this nightmare of a settlement, the nervous tension from which the market had been suffering for weeks past also comes to an end, and the Rialto breathes BEFORE HIS HONOUR T. SERCOMBE SMITH 14th August; that, subsequently to that dis-
14
again; but at what cost, only those who 'pid the penalty for being unduly optimistic can tell. When on. the morning of this memorable day of Saturday, the 31st August, 1901, de- liveries began, it was plain, even to the uninitiated, that something unusual Was happening on the Rialto, and among the fraternity a good deal of suppressed ex. citement and anxiety was manifested as to how things would progress. But as the day wore on. it became more and more apparent that no cause for apprehension existed, and matters were adjusting themselves without the least hitch. Nevertheless, it was with no little difficulty this result was attained, but attained it was, and for that those concerned should
be thankful
(ACTING PUISNE JUDGE).
C. E. WARREN r. LIK KEE.
Lik Ke
This was a cross suit for damages between C. E. Warren, contractor. 3a. Wyndham Street, and Lik Kee, contractor. 53, Fast Street. C. E. Warren's claim was for $15 for damage done by Lik Kee to a doorsill belonging to the plaintiff he also claimed costs. claimed the sum of $35, the value of a certain quantity of bricks, the property of the plaintiff. Lik Kee, and wrongfully appoprinted by the defendant, Mr. Warren, or his employees.
Mr. Goldring, solicitor (Messrs. Deacon and Hastings), appeared for Mr. Warren, and Mr. Hays, solicitor (Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and
Master), for Lik Kee.
Mr. Warren's claim was heard first, and he was called to give evidence. The plaintiff stated that he heard on the 14th August that the
was contractor. to the
Lik Keo afterwards went about the matter. po ica
and told the plaintiff's sub-contractor that he would have all the workmen arrested.
Yet, when you come to think it over, it seems marvellous how a crisis was averted, for the drop in Docks was something ernel, and was undoubtedly responsible for what at one time doorsill had been broken by the defendant's workmen. Lik Kee refused to make good the looked like a grave situation. So swiftly and
damage, on the other hand asking the plaintiff so suddenly fell the blow that it was utterlyfr fr bricks said to have been used by his, useless for holders to attempt to place shares
(the paintiff's) sub-contractor. The plaintiff. on the market in time to save themselves. Particularly was this the case with the rank bricks were his own, having been taken from an in turu. refused to pay over this sum, as the and file element, who were caught as in a trap.old wall and built into a new one for which he Of course, to a great extent, these people have only themselves to blame, having entered into enormous engagements, all for the settlement: though, to do them justice, no one could for one moment have thought such a drop possible. In fact it is very much to be doubted whether even those who were working in the direction of a smash were prepared for such low rates. It is not improbable that that ustounding pro. position of the Directors to give away to their retiring Manager, a sum equal to four per cent. on the capital, while at the same time stinting the dividend on the plea that provision must be made for future emergencies, indirectly affected the market. At all events, it certainly was a most curious proposition to put forward. For once, however, the shareholders plucked up courage, took a line of their own, and vetoed the proposition.
Business during the month, it is hardly necessary to add, was very limited iuded, being mostly for liquidating settlement engagements. Banks were not dealt in to any extent, but were picked off the market at lowering rates, the lowest point touched being 85 per cent, cum div. Towards the end of the month, however, they recovered a "Ittle, and $005 ex div. was paid for shares. It will be noted that this stock is now quoted in dollars, a decided improvement on the old style.
Shipping.-Contrary to expectation, after the handsome dividend of Indo-Chinus, this stock did not maintain its position. having latterly been negotiated at $135. Steamboats have kept very steady all throughout the mouth and are enquired after at $34. Douglases.-A slight spurt was noticeable for a day or two during
last week, but this soon died out, and the shares are now almost unsaleable.
Hongkong Lands were negotiated in very large quantities, and close steady at $191.
Humphreys Estate are again coming into favour, and a good demand exists for them at the close.
China Sugars.-The interim dividend of $5 is generally considered very satisfactory, but, owing no doubt to the indifferent state of the market, there is not mach' movement in these shares.
!
Mr. Hays cross-examined. Plaintiff was sure that Lik Kee had no bricks at the place. so that plaintiff could not have mistaken the bricks. However, if they had been there it was possible that such a mistake might have occurred.
|
he plaintiff's sub-contractor gave evidenc», to the effect that the doorsill was broken in two by Lik Kee's sub-contractor, who thought that the doorsili, where it lay, was likely to interfere with certain drainage work which Lik Keo had contracted for. Witness corroborated the plaintiff's statement that Lik Lee had no bricks lying in the vicinity of plaintiff's jab.
By his Lordship The sill was broken with a hammer by one of Lik Kee's workmen.
This concluded the cus for Mr. Warren, and that of Lik Kis was then proceeded with. Mr. Hays said his clien' had a contract for certain building operations Euland Lot 797. The work had been entirely finished except for the laying of some drains, and this Lik Kes placed in the hands of a sub contractor It was dur ing the carrying ont of this drain work that the dorsill was broken, but Lik Ke Mr. Hays argued, was no liable for dading,
due by the workmen of his sub contractor With regard to the bricks, the Case for Lik Keo was that after pulling down the. houses on luland Lot No 797 and restoring theta, there was a quantity of blue bricks let ON These bricks wore in the adjoining kit piled close to a wall which Mr. Warren's sub- contractor was palliu down for the purpose of rebuilding. The bricks pulled down were thrown on top of Lik Kee's bricks, which were afterwards used with the others in
the re Luilding.
Lik Kee was called and gave evidence, being afterwards cross-examined.
His Lordship gavo judgment for the defond ant, with cost, in both cases- C. E. Warren in
the one and Lik Kee in the other
Wednesday, 11th September.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
The general tone of the market, since the settlement, is quiet but steady. Business, how- ever, is rather restricted, operators showing a wise discretion in assuming a waiting attitude, BEFORE HIS HONOUR T. Sercomne SMITH
and want to see further developements before entering into fresh engagements. Quite right.
They have had no end of a lesson, it will do i them no end of good.”
ESA.
(ACTINO PUISSE JUDGE.
LENG KUN YAU e
HON. P. H
MAY
charge, Mr. Mounsey, purporting to act in the plaintiff's behalf. went to the defendant and asked him to deliver a copy of the order of banishment under which the plaintiff was then detained in custody of the police;, and that the defendant absolutely refused to and did not
deliver each copy. The defendant had already doclined in writing.
On behalf of the defendant the following points were taken, vis.—
(1) That the Act 31 Car. 2. C. 2 did not apply to this Colony ;
(2) That, even if the Act did apply, it refer- red only to cases where a person was committed or detained for "a criminal or supposed cri minal matter," and that the plaintiff in this
action had not been thus committed or detained; (3) That the defendant had no mens rea in declining to deliver the copy demanded;
(4) That the demand for the copy had not, as required by section 5, been mide either by tho plaintiff or by a person in his behalf;
(5) That the remand made was not for a copy of the warrant of commitment and detention, but for a copy of the order of banishment;
by the refusa to deliver a copy of the order of (6) That the plaintiff had not been damnified banishment; and
(7) That the mention, in suction 5 of the Act. of the King's Courts at Westminster as the tourts in which an action to recover penalties was to be brought, and of archaic forms of procedure, indicated the an action to recover penalties was confued t - suca Courts and could not lo againtained ix, xny of the Courts of the King's Tominton abroad.
of the seven objections, the second objection appears to be far the strongest. I will there.
easider that obje last of all. The 10 Habeas Corpus post chj cijo, was that "Act. .67), does not ap, in this Colony, hvatise it was pas
to check abuses which had grown up in Eng'at and were contrary to the then known Laws of England. I cer tainly will not ba the its judge to rule that the Hubas Corpus Act (of all English Acts) is inapplicable in this olony, except for the most engeat and couclusive rovsons.
|
His Lordship, in finding for the defendant, with costs, delivered the following judgment:-
This is an action brought under section 5 of M. Wehrung, Councillor of Foreign Com-the Habeas Corpus Act, 1679, to recover from merce and Director of the Russo-Chinese Bank | the defendant a sam of £100 (reduced to $1,500 | at Shanghai, has been appointed Chevalier of for the purposes of jurisdiction) as the penalty the Eegion of Honour.
incurred by him and recoverable by the plaintiff
Generally speaking, every English Act is passed to meet special circumstances or to check special abu es which have arisen in Eugland; and if he reasons adduc-d are to prevail, they would prevail in the cas of snch Acts as the 13 Eliz. e 5. directed against fraudulent deed", „t sienations, ete, and the 27 Eliz. c. 4. dire i against corizous and fraudulent con-
vevances.
Further, the Court would be very slow to exclude from operation in this Colony any English net which affected the paramount question of the liberty of the subject,
Again, by section 7 of Ordinanco 12 of 1873, it is enacted that such of the laws of England as existed when the Colony obtained a loenl legislature, that is to say on the 5th day of April, 1×433, shall be in fores within the Colony except so far as tho said laws shall be inapplie. able to the local circumstances of the Lelony or of its inhabitants. It seems to me that, by virtue of that section, all English laws existing on the 5th April, 1843, primú fucie have force in this Colony, and that their_inap- picability in this Colony must be shown by thủ party disputing their applicability to rest, not on particular phrases in these laws, but on the local circumstances of the Colony or of its inhabitants.
From this point of view, nothing in the local circumstances of the Colony or of its inhabituats occurs to my mind to render this remedial measure for securing the liberty of th» subject Inapplicable and superfluous. I therefore think that the Habeas Corpus Act, 1670, applies in | this Colony.
Closely connected with this first objection is the screath objection, which I will consider at once. The King's Courts in the Strand have succeeded to the powers and jurisdiction of the King's Courts at Westminister, and the Supreme Court of this Colony has the same