February 10, 19023
From these cases it appears to me that the question is not whether the judge who presided at the trial agreed with the verdict or not, but whether in the face of the evidence (conflicting as it was in this case) the verdict was unreasonable and one that reasonable men ought not to have arrived at. Now, although in view of the telegram from Kinghorn to Kingsley dated October 20th, 19), and the letter from Kinghorn to Kingsley of October 22nd, 1900, should not myself have come to the same conclusion as the majority of the jury did, yet I am not prepared to say that it was unreasonable for them to believe Kinghorn's evidence and explanations and disbelieve the plaintiff's. t was a case essentially for a jury and they exercised their discretion as in my opinion they were entitled to do. Under these circumstances it seems to me that 1 am bound by the anthorities and that this motion must be dismissed with costs.
His HONOUR T. SERCOMBE SMITH said The question was "Did the letter of 20th October, 1900, written by the defendant, con- stitute an acceptance by the defendant of plaintiff's oral offer of the 18th October ?" That offer was a sum of $325,00 for K‹wloon Marine Lot No. 9, payable ten per cent, within a week and balance within six months. There was also a question of commission raised, but that was settled by the telegram from Kingsley of the 20th October which was rightly constrned to mean that no commission would be allowed. Upon the receipt of that telegram of the 20th October, the plaintiff had an interview with the defendant, and it lay with the jury. after listening to the conflicting versions of what occurred at this interview which preceded the writing of Kinghorn's letter of the 20th October, to say whether that letter had been written subject to an oral understanding that it should constitute an acceptauce and bind the parties only if Kingsley confirmed the post- script laying down the time terms of payment. The majority of the jury having accepted Kinghorn's version of this interview, it followed that that majority found that the letter of 20th October, which on its face was apparently an acceptance, had been written to be kept in abeyauce until an oral condition had been fulfilled. Was this view of the evidence one which no reasonable men could or might have taken ? Looking at the evidence, it appears 10 me, who have not had the advantages of watching the demeanour of the witnesses, that the majority of the jury did not act unreasonably in believing that the telegram
wax
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
seemingly, that it referred to the time mentioned in Kinghorn's previous telegram of 19th October, and was despatched to discover what Kingsley's telegram of the 20th meant as to the time-terme. To ordinary minds, Kingsley's telegram of 20th October did not allow time for payment. Yet was it unreasonable that the majority of the jury should consider that Kinghorn's we of the 20th October indicated a misreading of Kingsley's wire and an applica tion for further instructions? I cannot say that this was a conclusion to which reasonable men might not hav、 come. more especially having" "regard to the contemporaneous if not simultaneous statement in Kinghorn's letter of the 22nd October in which he alludes to his wn telegram of 20th October as one for confirmation of the time-terms. If the majority of the jury ob served that Ho Li Cho had not been called as a witness for the plaintiff, who, it seems to me, was the proper party to call him, and drew therefrom an inference unfavourable to the plaintiff, I think that their action was neither unreasonable nor unjustifiable. As I agree with the law laid down by the Acting Chief Justice, and as I am of opinion that the verdict of the majority of the jury was not one which they, viewing the whole of the evidence reason ably, could not properly find. I concur in the judgment just-de'ivered.
HONGKONG, CANTON AND MACAO STEAMSHIP CO., LD.
HALF-YEARLY MEETING,
The seventy-first ordinary half-yearly meeting of shareholders in this Company was beld at the office, 18, Bank Buildings, at noon on the 4th inst. The Hon. J. J. Bell-Irving (Chairman) presided, and there were present – Messrs. N. A. Siebs, F.A. Gomes, A. Haupt, R. Shewan. E. Goetz (Directors), T. Arnold (Secretary), L. Berindoague. J. Y. Bruchoderie, W. H. Gaskell, J. N. Goosmann, J. J. Leiria. E. J. Moses, R. H. M. Silva, G. T. Veitch, and Capt. A. Tillett.
The notice convening the meeting having
been read.
The CHAIRMAN said--Gentlemen, I propose that, as usual, the report and acconuts be taken as read.
105.
upon the sum advanced, while our holding of shares stands in the books at a figure well within its market value. You will doubt. less approve of the proposal to transfer the amount of $59 000 from the Investment Finctuation Account to the cralit of the Equalization of Dividend Fund in addition to the like sum intended to be appropriated from the profits. The necessity for building up this fund I touched upon at our last meeting, and the reasons which I urged hold as good now as they did then. The amount of $178.918.18 which will remain at the credit of the Invest- ment Fluctuation Account after this transfer hs been made is. in the opinion of the Board, an ample provision against any probable depre. ciation in value of stocks held by the Company. Unless further information be desired I will now propose the adoption of the report and accounts as presented.
There were no questions, and on the motion of the CHAIRMAN, seconded by Captain TILLETT, the report and accounts as presented were adopted and passed.
Mr. GASKELL proposed that the appoint- ment of Mr. E. Goetz as a Director ba confirmed.
This was duly seconded and carried nn- animously,
The re-election of Messrs. A. O'D Gourdin and F. Henderson as auditors was proposed by Mr MOSES, seconded by Alv. LEIRIA, and | carried without opposition.
The CHAIRMAN That is all the business, gentlemen; thank you for your attendance. Dividend warrants will be ready to-morrow morning at ten o'clock.
HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING 'CORPORATION.
The following is the seventy-third report of the court of directors to the ordinary half-yearly general meeting of shareholders to be held at the City Hall, Hongkong, on Saturday, the 15th February, at noon:-
Goutlom n-The Directors have now to submit to you a general statement of the affairs of the Bank, and balance-sheet for the half-year
The net profits for that period, including $1,485,715.99 balance brought forward from last acc aut. after paying all charges, deducting interest paid and due, and making provision for baa aud loubtful accounts, amount $3 879,090.77
10
It is satisfactory to note that notwith-ending 31st December, 1901. standing heavier running expenses and increased competition, the Company's earnings have been maintained at the level of those of the corres- ponding half of the year 1909. Our West River boats are still working naremuneratively and, I am afraid, will continue to do so until the exist ing restrictions upon the trade are removed, Your Directors, however, are hopeful that the urgent representations upon this matter which were made by the Chamber of Commerce to Sir James Mackay, the Commissioner appointed to conduct the commercial negotiations with China, will result in good. It is gratifying to say that there is now good prospect of a much- needed reform, which has been strenuously urged by this Company for many years past, being soon an accomplished fact. I refer to the control of the Native Customs at Canton being taken or by the Imperial Customs; this chauge will mean the removal of facilities for shipping cargo by junk at lower duties than the tariff rates which have to be paid on gods shipped by steamers. With the abolition of such inducement to ship by native craft, we may reasonably look for a considerable increase in the volume of our cargo carrying trade in the near futuro. The neces- sity for an increase of the Company's ton- cage has been apparent to the Board for some time past, especially upon occasions
The Directors recommend the transfer of $50,000 from the profit and loss account to credit of the silver reserve fund, which fand will then stand at $4,250,000.
They also recom nend writing off bank pre- mises account the sum of $200,000,
shown to the plaintiff, and discussed by the parties, and that Kinghorn's telegram of the 20th October to Kingsley was the result of that interview and approved by both parties. llaving formed this opinion of the interview after having heard all the oral evidence at the trial, it is obvious that the majority of the jury believed Kinghorn to be speaking the truth. So far then as oral tes- timony was concerned. I see no reason to say that the jury returned a majority verdict which reasonable men might not have found. Turn- ing now to be documentary evidence, I inquire whether the letters and telegrams were such as to furnish that preponderance of evidence in favour of the plaintiff's contention which would constitute the verdict unreasonable us being against the weight of evidence. I here wish to emphasize the observation that the sole question for the jury was whether the letter of the 20th October constituted an whether of the 20th October constituted an absolute acceptance of the plaintiff's offer. It was common ground that that letter was, as it stood, apparently an absolute acceptance. Tht terms and meaning of that letter were not therefore, as a fact, before the jury, who had
when one of our steamers has had to be only to consider the fulfilment of an oral con- laid up for repair extending over several weeks, dition. Kinghorn's telegram of 19th October and as you will have observed in the report, we to Kingsley shows clearly that the question contemplate the building of a new steamer to of commission had not then been arranged be jointly owned, as in the case of the Fatshan, between the parties, but that the price and by ourselves and the China Navigation Com- time-term of payment had been arranged sub-pany, tenders for which are now being procured ject to submission to Kingsley. Then came
The Lankiang being rather too small for the Kingsley's reply telegram of 0th October, and Company's requirements, and there being no Kinghorn's wire back of the same date saying immediate prospect of finding any employment "I have sold to-day. I have arranged for the for her, she was sold at a small profit on her payment within the time mentioned." Whether book value included in the accounts Í should have construed this last telegram as presented: The Company's investments, I may the jury probably did, I do not say. The say, remain in a thoroughly satisfactory condi- construction of the majority of the jury was, tion, every mortgage showing an ample margin
now
After making these transfers and deducting remuneration to Directors there remains for appropriation $3,161,090.77. out of which the Directors recommend the payment of a ividend of one ponad and ton shillings sterling per share, which at 4/6 will absorb $533,333.33, aud a bonus of ten shillings sterling per share, which at 4/6 will absorb $177,777.78.
The difference in Exchanze between 4/6, the rate at which the dividend and bonus are declared, and 1/101, the rate of the day, amounts to $1,014,731.59.
The balance $1,438,218.07 to be carried to new profit and loss account.
DIRECTORS.
Mr. R. Shewan has been elected Chairman for the year 1992 and the Honourable J. J. Bell Irving, Deputy Chairman.
Mr. Pan Witkowski, having resigned his seat, Mr. E. Goetz has been invited to fill the vacancy: the appointment requires confirmation at this meeting.
Mr. K. L. Richardson and Mr. H. W. Slade retire in rotation, but being eligible for re. election, offer themselves accordingly.
AUDITORS.
The accounts have been audited by Mr. F. Handerson and Mr. C. S. Sharp, who offer themselves for re-election.
R. SHEWAN, Chairman. Hongkong 4th February, 1902".