*words five thousand seven hundred dollars in article No. 63 th words eight thousand hundred dolla e.”. Will any one second it? Mr. BEID Bofore I second it, Mr. Chair I should like to know if the General agers have been receiving, in addition to nis $5,700, a bonus at the rate of 25 per cent. the difference between the nett profits for the year and 12 per cent. on the subscribed capital? Have they bean receiving any thing? The CHAIEMAN-Only once, when we paid 12 „per cent dividend the year before last-in 1899, pthe only year we paid a 12 per cent. dividend. We are not entitled to that unless we pay 12 per cent. dividend to the shareholders.
MY REID This is a proposal to inore as the remuneration of the General Managersby $1.000, Is the division of that left to the General Managers themselves ?
The CHAIRMAN-Yes.
Mr. RAID-Then this does not include the my of the staff?
The CHAIRMAN-Oh no, only the General Managers. Their salary was fixed much to low for the start, and what with the exchange the ex- falling, and other expenses added on --- pense of living it is too low, and besides, the business is worth it, The General Managers have made a very considerable saving in expense to the Company by having to do the work them. selves a far greater saving per month than what you are asked to vote now for increase of salary,
Mr. KEID-Well, Mr. Chairman, a certain amount of responsibility attaches on me as the only shareholder attending the meeting in addition to yourselves. At the same time, I don't like to bring up an unpleasant matter referred to at last annual meeting of the share- holders, but I must ask, will the shareholders have returned to them the amount of money that was then said to be outstanding?
The CHAIRMAN Certainly; that was the object of it.
Mr. EID
-What sort of guarantee is to be given that it will be re-pa d? Have we simply got to take your word for it?
The CHAIRMAN-Yes, and you have the auditor's word for it.
Mr REID-I don't want to aise any un pleasantness.
The CHAI - MAN-Oh no. That is the object of the increase-to return the money.
Mr. REID In the circumstances, I have much pleasure in seconding that the increase be granted.
ܕ܂
The motion was carried. The CHAIRMAN intimated before the proceed. ings terminated that a confirmatory meeting would be held on Saturday.
HONGKONG · ELECTRIC CO., LD.
The following is the report of the Board of Directors to the thirteenth ordinary yearly meeting of shareholders, to be held at the Company's Offices, No. 4, Queen's Buildings, at 19.30 p.m., on Tuesday, 8th July:-
The balance at credit of profit and loss account is $65,787.96; after deducting directors' fees ($3,000.) there remains the sum of $52,737,96 available for appropriation, and your directors recommend that this be disposed of as follows
To pay a dividend of 8 per cent :- Say 80 cents per share on
30,000 fully paid shares...$24,000:03 Say 40 cents per share on
30,000 part paid shares... 12,000.00
To write off plant account for
depreciation To carry forward to next account...
|
|
THE HONGKONG. WEEKLY PRESS AND
AUDITORS.
The accounts have been andi'ed by Messrs, J. C. Peter, and Gershom Stewart (the latter, in place of Mr. Murray Stewart, who is absent from the Colony). These gentlemen offer themselves for re-elec ion.
C. S: SHABP,
Chairman.
Hongkong, 20th June, 902:
MANAGEE'S REPORT.
SUPREME COURT.
Monday, 23rd June.
* IN APPELLATE JURISDICTION..
list was put in and in it i both the defendants:
Ip Oi Shan that the defenda Cho stated to the witness that he
in the firm, upon the strength of which states ment witness resumed dealing with the firmaz Wong Shin Cho denied the truth of this ovi- dence. Kwok Bham Yuen, another witness stated: that the defendant Chang Ming Shi had) been formerly a co-partner, of his in the. Po Hing Gentlemen, I have to report that the lamps firm., Chang Ming, Shỉ denied that bẻ had and f us connected to the comp.ny's incandes- ever be in a partner. The witness Kwok Sham Yuou stated, when recalled, that the name, cent lighting se-vice on the 1st June were equivalent to about 16 300 lamps of 8 candle- Chan U How Tong appearing in one of the power. The number of aro lamps now in firm's books was another name of the defend int - operation is 85. The number of lifts operatedChan Ming Chi. This the latter denied. Objeз. by the power service has been increased to 9. tion being taken to the admission of the book in During the year, the three orginal incandescent | evidence," the Court, without examination of lighting sets, laid down in 1890, have been dis- the book, held that the book should be treated card d, and a steam alternator of much larger not as an account book but as a bundle of cap city has been erected in the space thus documents, as no evidence had been given by rendered available. A duplicate steam alter the person who kept the book that it was a nator for working the day-load has also been book of account or regularly kept, or that either, book. Counsel for the defendants: -when- recently received, and is now in process of of the defendants had any knowledge of the erection.
addrès ing the Court at the conclusion of the case raised the objection that the paper written: by Wong Sit Fan and put in evidence as store- said was not evidence against the defendanto: He at the same time objected to the evidence of Kwok Sham Yuen as to Chan Ming Shi's In giving former partnership with him. judgment His Honour the Acting Puisne Juige held “(1) that the said paper written by Wong Sit Fon was not in itself evidence of partnership on the part of the defendants; (2) that the alleged admission by. Wong Shim, Cho that he was a partner was not in itself evidence that he was at the time in fact a partner, but only such as would make him liable as a partner. to the person to whom such alleged admission: was made or to any other person acting on the strength of such admission; (3) that_the statement by the witn ss Kwok Sham Yuen that he had been a partner with Chan-Ming: receivable evidence of the fact of the existence Chi in the said firm was not in itself at the time referred to of's partnership between himself and Chin Ming Shi in the said firm.” . The questions for the opinion of the appeal Court were: -(1) Was the evidence as within sef;forth › which was admitted without objection after wards rightly rejected? (2) Was the evidence of Kwok Sham Yuen as to the partnership between himself and Chan M ng Chi rightly rejected? (3) Was the alleged admission by the defendant Wong Shin Cho that he was- a- partner rightly rejected? (4) Was the entry in the said book rightly rejected as not being evidence of partnership P
BEFORE THEIR HONOURS W. MEIGH · GOODMAN (CHIEF JUSTICE) and T. SARCOMBE SMITH (ACTING PUISNE JUDGE).
THE KWONG LEE V. CHÁN MING CHỈ
AND WONG SHIN CHO.
Judgment was given in the appeal against the decision in this case which was origina y brought in the Lower Court by the Kwong Lee, 100, Connaught Road, who claimed from the defendants, Chan Ming Chi, 63, Bonham Strand and Wong Shin Cho. 4, Ice House Street, recovery of a sum of 3675 28, alleged to be due to the plaintiffs by. the defendants as partners in the Po Hing firm, lately carrying on business at 249, Des Voeux Road as rice- il sum dealers, but now in bankruptcy. Th of $675.28 as to $657.32, part thors i, was alleged to be due to the plaintiffs by the defendants in their capacity of partners as afores vid for goods sold and delivered by the plaintiffs to the Po Hing firm; and as to $1.15, further part of the said sum of $675:28, for commission agreed to be paid by the defendants, as such partners, to the plaintiffs, and as to $4 81, the balance of the total claim, for coolie hire paid by the plaintiffs for the defendants as such partners and at their request. Alter- natively the plaintiff claimed that sum as due to be paid to them by the d fendants as having represented themselves to be partners in the Po Hing firm; as damages for breach of as damages for fraudulent contract,
After bearing evidence, misrepresentation. Mr. Justice Sercombe Smith gave judgment, on 30th May, for defendants with costs.
or
The plaintiffs appealed against that decision on certain points of law and upon the facts. In the special case the appellants stated that on the bearing it was stated by counsel in summing up for the plaintiffs that it dil not appear to him that the claim made on the ground of representation of partnership could be sustained, and the whole que dion for the Court to decide was whether or not the defen- dants were in fact partners in the Po Hing -$36,000,00 | firm. On the hearing it was proved that the sum in question was due by Po Hing firm to 25,452.57 the plaintiffs and that one Wong Sit Fan 1,275.39 had been the manager of the said firm. The defendants d'nied that they were or had $62,737.96 ever been partners in the firm and alleged that The manager's report attached hereto gives Wong Sit Fan was the sole owner there particulars ork carried ont during the of. Evidence had been given by several witnesses, all of whom we e creditors of the year &c.
firm, and received without objection taken at the time, that on the 3rd day of March last after the firm had suspended payment a meet- ing of the creditors was held at which. Wong Sit Fan attended but at which neither of the de’endants was present, and that at this meet- ing the said Wong Sit Fan stated that the defendants were partners in the firm and made list in writing of the names of the partners and the share of each in the firm. The said
DIRECTORS,
Thurburn resigned his sext on his from the Colony, and Mr. G: H. invited to take his place on the appointment requires confirmation.
hator, C.M.G., is now absent ou" dango with the Articles of And Hon. C. W. Dickson retire, eligible, offers themselves for
|
|
|
The appeal was heard before the Full Court on 20th, 21st and 23rd inst., Mr. M. Slade, barrister-at-law, instructed by Mr. J. Scott the appellants Haraton, of Messrs. Ewens & Harston, solicitors, appearing for (plaintiffs); and Mr. T. Morgan Phillips, barrister-at-law, instructed by Mr. C. De Wilk inson, of Messrs. Wilkinson a Grist, solicitors, for the respondents (defendants),(
After hearing parties,
The Court dismissed the appeal, with general costs, but. on the points of law, decided in favour of the appellants on two points (questions 2 and 3 as given above), and the Court therefore decided that, so far as the special case was concerned, each party should bear is own costa
The consequence of the decision is „that thé judgment of the Court below stands;
A report from the Japanese - Consúl - at: Newcbwang, dated the 7th inst., states that out; of 1,500 railway coolies landed there on the previous day by a steamer from Tientsin, 87% were attacked by cholera. Seventeen) disdiin a few hours, and the remainder were isolated, No cases had been reported among the inhabit-2 ants of Newchwang.
It is reported, says a Peking telegr Osaka Asahi, that thể" Russianse Peking will consent to the trans Peking and Shanhaikwan railwa tion that Chins alone undert tion of railways in North any outside powers from further reported that: object to the Russian prop