November 8, 1902.1
The Consul can easily see from the ships' manifest, by whom such goods were shipped and to whom they are consigned at the port of destination before issuing such passes by so doing a lot of underhand business will be stopped to the credit of their nationals before the eyes of the Chinese authorities.-Yours, etc.,
A MERCHANT.
A FOOLISH AMUSEMENT.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE "DAILY PRESS.
Hongkong, 4th November. SIR-For some time past some crack-brained individuals, living in the Hongkong Hotel, have been in the habit of amusing themselves by throwing copper coins from their verandah to the street blow, which naturally attracted a big crowd of coolies and children. This foolish amusement sometimes lasted over an hour, during which that part of Des Voeux Road fronting the Hotel became almost impass able; certainly a lady coming up from Blake Pier could not pick her way into the Hotel. Strange to say, although this practice was indulged in a number of times, the police allowed it to go on uuchecked.
Of late, however, the individuals referred to bave taken it into their heads to indulge in this absurd amusement at nighttime, to the aunoy- auce of the whole neighbourhood. Up to 11.30 lust night, a most noisy crowd of coolies was congregated between Messrs. Jardine's offices and the Hotel, making night hideous by their hooting and shouting, while in the intervals of waiting for more coin the noise was simply awful. This sort of thing may seem funny to a few feather-pated youths, but it undoubtedly constitutes a public nuisance, which the police can, and ought to, put a stop to,-Yours, &c.,
HOTEL VI-ITOR.
SUPREME COURT.
Monday, 3rd November.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION,
BEFORE HIS HONOUR A. C. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE).
A NEW TERITORY CASE,
A case was called during the hearing of which the following facts were disclosed. The pro- perty at Un Lung of Tam Chan Fai was seized
an
a warrant, which was executed on 21st October and the gods sold. Subsequently the landlord came for ard and applied for a distraint warrant for eight months' rent, $80.
Mr. II. Hursthouse, solicitor (Messrs Dennys & Bowley) appeared for the execution creditor aud made application that the litter warrant ba discharged on the ground that under Ordin. auce 14 of 1902, Section 17, that ourt had no jurisdiction with regard to rent for lands or buildings in the New Territory.
His Lordship said he w.nld withdraw the distraiut warrant, as it was undoubtedly irregu- lar. He would advise the landlord to write a lettor to the execution creditor stating that he was the landlord and to prove his case in the Land Court as soon as he could.
The Court adjourned.
Tuesday, 4th November.
IN APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
BEFORE THEIR HON URS W. MEIGH Good- MAN (CHIEF J. STICE) AND A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE),
YUI CHEUNG FIRM AND OTHERS
LUT WAN.
r. LI
(
This was a motion for leave to appeal against so much of an order of His Hoa ur Mr. Justice Wise in Chambers made in certain Summary Court actions on 11th October on a summons taken out by the plaintiffs, to which the said Li Woon Chi was respondent, as direc-¡ ted that the balance of the funds in the hands of the manager appointed by the Court should be applied in payment of the plaintiffs' costs of action and in payment to the plaintiffs of their respective judgment debte pro ruta, on the ground that, the said funds being the
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
balance of routs collected in advance by the manager, and the said Li Woon Chi having on
1 the 1st of September, or in the alternative on mortgages in possession of the property out of the 10th of September, acquired the position of which the reufs came, such portion of the rents as accrued on and subsequent to these alterna- tive dates should be appointed to Li Woon Chi and should be payable to him by the
10
After evidence had been heard,
365
His Lordship gave judgment for the execution creditor. He called the claimants forward and told them he believed they had not told the to commit them to prison for perjury, and they truth in their evidence; he had had it in mind
allowed to get off clear. might consider themselves fortunate in being
The Court adjourned.
Thursday, 6th November.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR A. G. WISE.
(PUISNE JUDGE).
HONGKONG STEAM-LAUNCH CO., LD.
In the matter of the Hongkong Steam-launch Co., Ld., recently wound up voluntarily by an order of the Court,
(instructed by Mr. H. W. Looker, solicitor). Mr. T. Morgan Phillips, barrister-at-law applied under the Companies Ordinances 1865 affidavit had been filed by Mr. Looker in support to 1899 for the appointment of a liquidator: an of the application. Mr. A R. Lowe was nomi- nated as liquidator.
His Lordship asked what the position of the Company was? Were there any asssets and what were the securities?
manager. Mr. M. W. Slade, barrister-at-law, who appeared for the appellant (instructed by Mr. J. Hastings, of Messrs. Deacon & Hastings, solicitors) said that this case arose out of a long series of actions in the Summary Court as a result of which certain landed property belong- ing to a man named Li Lut Wan was seized. A prohibitory order was obtained and a manager of this property was appointed to receive the rents and to pay them towards the claims of the judgment creditors. On 1st September the mortgagee to this same man-the appellant in the case applied by summons to be allowed to take possession of the property which was then in the hands of the manager. The manager being in possession on behalf of the Court, the mortgagee could not obtain possession except by going into Court. His summons for that
purpose was not heard at once. it Was taken out for the 5th of Septembr and postponed .till the 10th of September, through fault of the applicant at all; and on the 10th September au order WAR made letting him into possession and practically discharging the manager from the possession of the property While the manager was st.ll in possession, he of course had obtained the rents of the superior landlord. The rent paid for the property was payable at the end of each month; the reuts coming in from the tenants were payable in advance-in the ordinary Chinese way. Now, the manager when he went out on the 10th September had collected practically the whole of the rents for the months of August and September without paying any rent to the superior landlord for these two months, so that the mortgagee who took possession had been compelled to pay the rent for the month of August, and, naturally, heiug in possession at the end of September, BEFORE HIS HONOUR W. MEIGH GOODMAN for that month as well. Before he collected a single cent of rents he had paid two months' rent to the superior landlord. The result of this was that he got absolutely nothing ont of it. The Puisue Judge asked why he did not go in before?
Mr. Slade replied that perhaps he had made a mistake, but he considered that he was going had received and paid the same number of rents in sufficiently early to secure his money if he On the other hand the manager had received six mo tus' rets and paid only five.
then only one month's rent wrong.
The Puisne Judge remarked that there was
Mr. Slade said that was so, but the manager's one extra month put the mortgagee two months wroug. The motion asked that the rents obtained by the manager, $1,600 for August, and during the mouth of Septemb r before the the mortgagee. mortgag-e came into possession, be r paid to
The Chief Justice said he thought they could not go beyond the 5th of September in relation to the claim for that month. All they could say would be perhaps the 1st,
|
|
were now the property of the Company; Mr. Mr. Morgan Phillips said that three lanuches thordon was the sole owner.
} His Lordship asked if the owner had agreed
to this?
Mr. Morgan Phillips replied that he had; he was the Company.
In reply this Lordship,
assets of the Company amounted, roughly Mr. Morgan Phillips further stated that the speaking, to $10,000.
His Lordship fixed the liquidator's security at this amount.
The Court adjourned.
IN APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
CHIFF JUSTICE).
LAND COURT APPEAL.
This was a motion by Ng Yik Shan as trustee for the Ng family for leave to appeal against a decision of the Land Court, nader the New Territories Land Court Ordinance, 1902, with reference to the lease of a tract of land near Kowloon City.
Mr. E. H. Sharp, K.C., who (instructed by Mr. G. K. H. Brutton of Messrs. Mounsey & Brutton, solicitors) appeared for the ap- pellant, sid that his 0 180 was that the had been awarded by the Land Coart were Wong family to whom the land in question tenauts of the Ng family. It was admitted that the owners of this land were the Ng family for which the appellant was trustee, and the only point between the two families was that the Wongs claimed this land not as which they produced before the Land Court. owners out-and-out but under a perpetual lease, dated 1801, from the Ng family.
It was common ground that the Ngs were the ultimate owners of the land; also that the Wongs had ben teuants. The Wongs claimed a perpetual
The Puisne Judze concurred. The motion for learé to appeal was granted. lease; the Ngs admitted that they were lessees, The Court adjourned.
Wednesday, 5th November.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE.)
SEIZURE OF CARGO-BOATS. The facts in this case were that on 24th October Ho Kam Ki got judgment against To Chan Wa on a promissory note for 8530. After judgment he issued a writ of execution and ssi ed two cargo-boats alleged to belong to defendant the To Chan Wa; now Ho In and Lo Un Chai claimed that they were the owners of those cargo-boats which were seized
Mr. H. N. Ferrers, barrister-at-law, appeared for both claimants; and Mr. E. Grist of Messrs. Wilkinson & Grist, solicitors, appeared for the execution creditor,
but only for 30 years, and held that that lease had expired in 1896. The appellant stated that the Wongs bad substituted a forged perpetual lease for the genuine 30 years' lease which the Wongs suppressed. The Ng family had been i endeavouring to get this expired lease from the Wongs for some years but had not succeeded in doing so.
•*
His Lordship-What did the Land Court award?
land to the Wongs.
Mr. Sharp-The Land Court awarded the the tract of land given to the Wongs was ap- He went on to say that proximately 18 to 20 acres. about 3 acres.
The Ngs got lease was forged.
The appellant claimed that the His Lordship would see from the evidence and affadavits that the forger had -assuming the lease to be forged-followed the genuine leate, but in so doing his Lord- ship would no doubt be satisfied that he had committed himself. He had made the lessor and the lessee the same persons that
1.