10
for delivery but was unable to obtain the same; on the following day, being Bnnday, no cargo was delivered, but on 18th May delivery was applied for and the goods were toodered, but plaintiff's agent found that the goods were not in good o der and condition but on the contrary were damaged by raiu or other fresh water to such an extout as to be wholly namerchantable. The plaintiff refused to take delivery of the goods and left them on board ship. Plaintiff claimed that the damage was caused by the negligence of the servants of the defendant company, and he had 1 st the value of the goods and the freight and incurred divers charges in respect thereof.
In their statement of defence the steamship company said they received 7 wooden cases of silk cocoons which were externally in good order and condition, and that the bill of lading they were not responsible for leakage. They said further that the cocoons were shipped in an unfit condition. Also they stated that on 18th May plaintiff by his servants applied for delivery of the goods which was given to them and they proceeded to take the same when a rain-storm coming on they desisted therefrom, replacing themselves the goods under the hatches. The goods were subsequently discharged into the company's godowns by their own servants and are still there. The damage occasioned to the cocoons was the result of leakage o used by their inherent vice and their being shipped in an unfit condition; and the cocoons being packed in tin-lined cases through which it was impossi- ble for water of any description to permeate, no water of any description coming from outside reached or stained the cocoons. The cases were under the bill of lading landed and stored by the agents of the ship at the risk aud expense of the plaintiff.||||
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
Wednesday, 1st July,
|
|
¦
|
|
Is CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.
BAFORE HIS Honour SIR WILL'AM1 M. GOODMAN (CHIEF JUSTICE).
ALL'GED SUBORNATION.
The above case was again called. Counsel having completed their addresses to the jury on the previous day,
as
[July 4, 1903. plaintiff was going to Canton to share the spoil with the other partner.
His Lordship We must check mate thal move The Official Receiver farther said that they had brought a man from Maono to state that he was a partner in the firm. The creditors did not recognise him, and he then raid he was not a partner but he thought his father hid an interest in the firm.
His Lordship remarked that in this way they never knew what to do. If they made a man a bant rupt the property was rested in the trustee but if there was no statement of aff»irs filed and no public examination other peoplo might come forward and take cut tankruptcy proceed ings, after execution had been taken out, and claim put of the money which the execution creditor had recovered.
the execution creditor was supposed to be in collusion with the absconding managing partner. His Lordship-There is no suspicion that the other creditors are acting in co cert with him in any way ?
The Official Receiver said that in this case
The Official R-ceiver-No; these petitioning creditors are gennine creditors.
His Lordship stated that if he made an order these creditors would get their share of the assets. He had to act without a statement of affairs and without a public examination, the reason being that the debtors had left the Colony. If they did not file a statement of affairs they were guilty of contempt of Court and w re liable to be sent to misou if they returned to the Colony. He could under the last clange of Section 16 of the 1901 Act adju dicate forthwith.
His Lordship summed up. The prisoner, he said, was charged with having gɔt a man named Lan to state in evidence before the Land Court, with a view to the perversion of law and justice, that certain land had not been sold that had been and that the sale was a forgery, he at the time knowing that the land had been sold and that the sale was ro a forgery. His Lordship proceeded to review the facts of the case revealed by the evidence. In 187, he said, the family Lus appeared to have sold a piece of land they possessed in the Now Territory for about 30 taels. Siuce being taken over by Great Britain, the land there had enormously increased in value and what was not worth much ten years ago was worth a very great deal now. A consider able number of persons speculated in land, hop. ing for a rise in value, and in some case owners might have been induced to part with their land at most inadequate prices. However, if the owner was willing to sell it, a person had a right to buy it. As time went on and the British New Territory became enhanced in value this family doubtless thought what fools they had been to part with their land for so small an amount. In 1895 one of the family while looking over some deeds found an old deed referring to this His Lordship stated that in that case bị property that had been sold. What she ought would make a receiving order. But it was io have done with it was to have taken it to the quite possible that this man might have recent purchasers and handed it ever to them. $5,000 of $8,000 that they knew nothing about; But Chinese-like, the woman having got hold and what was to prevent him from slipping of this old deel began to think how she could back after this affair had blown over and carry- derive some benefit from it. So on 19thing on his business as before under a new name January, 1901, they found the Laus coming or one of his bumerous aliases? Was there any- before the Land Court and making a claim for body to take notice of it if such a thing hap- this very land they were said to have sold in pene? 1892. On the same day that they made this claim. and on the strength of the expectation that they would win it, they sold the property a soond time through he defendant for $4,000, of which, it was said, $2,000 was actually paid down. In the meantime the claim took a long to consider; and it was when it came before the Land Court in Novembar, 1902. that the evidence was given that the Laus had not sold the land in 1892 and that the sale was a forgery. The great thing for the jury to consider was→ Did the defendant know of that sale in 1 92 ?
Evidence for the plaintiff was given to the effect that plaintiff had bought the cocoons in the neighbourhood of Foochow and desired to send them to the silk filaturo at Macio to be spun. Before shipping them he baked them to kill the silk-worms inside but this operation he did not perform quite in the usual manner, pla: ing then in thin layers on a trellis ovor charcoal fires. When be consideret them thoroughly dried they were packed in tin-lined wooden cases and shipped on board the Haimun. On arrival at Hongkong, plaintiff went on to Macao the same day to arrange about the spinning of the silk, leaving his agent to take delivery of the goods. When in Macao he received a letter from this agent informing him that the cocoons were damaged and that he had refused delivery. Plaintiff immediately returned to Hongkong. He went to the Po On Insurance Co., who had insured the goods, but they said the goods had been surveyed and that the damage was done by freshwater and not by Bea-water, He afterwards made this claim against the steamship company. The boat- man who was sent to take delivery of the cuses | 4 to 3. of cocoons found that they were wet under- H's Lordship told them that they must find neath and refused delivery For the defence a verdict by a majority of not less than 5 to 2. expert evidence was called to prove that the They must retire again and try to come to such cocoons had not been properly baked and that the a verdict; if not, the case would have to be moisture exuded by the half-baked silk-worms ried over again. had in all probability percolated through small leaks in the badly soldered tin lining and so made the cases wet on the outside, The damage was not caused by sea-water.
His Lordship said there was no doubt the damage was done by fresh water. The point was whether the water came from the inside by a leak or in fron the outside. It was clear on the evidence of the boatman that when he went on board to shift this cargo he found when he put his hand nuderneath the cases that he got it wet and it was clear that any wetness there must have been got on board the ship. The only possible way of fresh water getting on board the ship was rain and the only possible way of the moisture getting from the inside of the cases to the outside was by the cocoons being badly baked. They had it that this cargo was not shifted on board ship until it reached Hongkong and as there was an awning over it he could not concieve of any rain getting into the cases on board ship. From the appearance of the cocoons he was bound to hold that the goods when put on board were not in good condition and that he moisture caine from the inside of the cases. Judgment would be for the defendants with costs, k
The Court adjourned." ↑
The Official Receiver said it would be con venient to do that.
The Official Receiver remarked that abscond- ing bankrupts seemed 10 vanish altogether. Ona had come back after ten years; that was the only case.
His Lordship-Would anybody know it, if he did come back?
The Official Receiver-The creditors would know it.
His Lordship-Would they come and tell you? The Official Receiver-I think they would, His Lordship-Becausз if we catch a case like that we must see what we can do. Application granted: Mr. Bruce Shepherd to be Official
The jury retired to consider their verdict and when they returned into Court, the Fore-Receiver. man stated that they had come to a decision by
After an absence of some minutes, the jury found the prisoner not guilty by 5 to 2.
The prisoner was discharged. The Court adjourned.
Thursday, 2nd July.
IN BANKRUPTCY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR WILLIAM M. GOODMAN (CHIEF JUSTICE).
CHINESE BANKRUPTS' METHODS. In re the Cheung Wo firm, dbtors, ex parte Tack Cheong Loong and others, creditors, Mr. C. E. H. Beavis of Messrs. Wilkinson & Grist, solicitors, appeared in support of the creditors' petition for adjudication on the estate.
His Lordship asked what the assets were ? The Official Receiver (Mr. Bruce Shepherd) stated that there was a sum of $3,000 in Court. some time ago, be understood, the managing partner of the debtor firm absconded andanaction was brought against him in the Supreme Court by a creditor for about $5,000., After judgment by consent had been given, defendant's goods were sold and realised $3,000. This sum was now in Court. But the creditors said that the
|
|
The Court adjourned.
CHINA LIGHT AND POWER
co.,
LD.
EXTRAORDINARY GENERAL MELTING. An extraordinary general meeting of share- holders in the above Company was held on the 27th ult. at the offices of the general managers, Messrs. Shewan, Tomes & Co., for the purpose of considering the subjoined resolutions. Hon. R. Sh-wan (chairman) presided, and the others present were Hon. Sir Paul Chater, C.M.G., Dr. Noble, and Messrs D. E. Brown, L. Marston. J. H. Lewis, A. Reid, Fung Wa Chün, and R. Henderson (secretary).
The notice calling the meeting having been read.
The CHAIRMAN proposed the first resolution as follows:-" That the capital of the Company by reduced from $300,00)](divid ́d into 15,000 shares of 820 each) to $150,00) (divided into 15,0) 0 shares of $10 each) |and that such redno tion be effected by reducing the nominal amount of all the shares in the Company's capital from $20 to $10 per share.”
Dr. NOBLE seconded, and the motion was carried unanimously,
The CHAIEMAN next proposed :--~That after such reduction the capital of the Company be increased from $150,000 (divided into 15,000 shares of $10 each) to $300,000 (divided into 30,000 shares of $10 each) by the creation of