106
adopts it she will in a few years stand abreast with all the gold countries in this regard, to the great advantage of her foreign trade and with immense benefit to her entire population."
we
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
Tuesday, 30th August.
i
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
(PUISNE JUDGE.)
CLAIM ON PROMISSORY NOTES.
Wong sau sued Sim Tim for $500 on pro- missory notes. Defendant set up a special defence with a set-off of $412 against the claim-
The Judge after hearing the evidence gave judgment for the plaintiff with costs for $465.
Mr. R. Harding, solicitor, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Otto Kong Sing, solicitor,
for the defendant.
Wednesday, 31st August.
These remarks will be BEFORE HIS HONOUR T. SERCOMBE SMITH generally endorsed. There can now, fancy, be only one genuine opinion on the subject. While China remains a dumping ground-practically the last of any extent- for the surplus silver of the world, she must continue to suffer all the manifold illsaut. which arise from a depreciated, and, still worse, a fluctuating medium of exchange. The Treaty Powers, it is satisfactory to note, recognise the fact, and appear willing to assist the Chinese Government to put their house into financial order. It would indeed be shameful were it otherwise. As creditors of China they could not be so unsympathetic as to press for payment being made in gold and refuse to lend support to her efforts to place her currency on a gold basis. We trust we shall hear no more talk of silver being best adapted for the needs of China ou the wholly mistaken ground that its use will enable her to augment her exports. Sir ROBERT HART must have smiled at such a contention, if he did not regard it as a plausible fallacy invented to perpetuate a system which works for the profit only of gold-using countries.
L
SUPREME COURT.
~:0:-
Monday, 29th August.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR HENRY S. BERKELEY (CHIEF JUSTICE).
AN EX PARTE SUIT.
Yu, Shing sued Shan Hing Chung for the costs of an action which plaintiff had brought against defendant. Mr. H. E. Pollock (instructed by Mr. G. K. Hall Brutton, solici tor) appeared for the plaintiff. The defendant was unrepresented.
Mr. Pollock in opening the case stated that they obtained leave on 1st July to appear ex parte. A certain document was delivered over to the defendant under this order, and the only question before his Lordship was the question o costs. When the defendant had this docu- ment handed over to him he promised to pay costs, but this he delayed to do, although he was told by the plaintiff's solicitor that if he did not
pay the costs there would be a formal appli- cation made in the Court.
His Lordship gave judgment for the plain
tiff with costs.
CLAIM FOR LAND IN THE NEW TERRITORY.
Wong Tai San sued Leung Hang for $10,243 in respect of the purchase of land at Samsuipo in the New Territory. Hon. Dr. Ho Kai (instructed by T. W. Tso, solicitor) appeared for the plaintiff. Defendant was not represented. Dr. Ho Kai in his opening statement said the action was for the recovery of a sum secured by a bond given by the defendant to the plaintiff. Plaintiff was a banker at 53, Bonham Strand. Defendant was managing partner of the Yee Mow Tai firm, Mongkokteni, timber merchants, 219, Des Voeux Road. On 11th January, 1901, plaintiff purchased from Leung Hang for $8,417 a piece of land having an area of 32,376 square féet registered in the Land Office as Section A of Samsuipo Lot No. 12, and the indenture was made between Leung Hang and the plaintiff. whereby it was assigned to him. By this assignment defendant became bound to the plaintiff to pay the sum of $16.235. From that date plaintiff had had use of only a very small portion of the land, amounting to 1,463 square feet, and the remaining portion, amounting to 30,912 square feet; was lying idle awaiting the decision of the Land Court. The decision of the Land Court took away the land with the exception of the 1,468 feet, and Leung Hang
·was deprived of the use of the said premises.
His Lordship after hearing counsel gave judgment for the plaintiff with costs.
C
IN BANKRUPTCY.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR HENRY 8. BERKELEY (CHIEF JUSTICE).
DISPUTÉ ABOUT A LEASE. In the case of Li Sheang, ex parte the debtor. there was called an action as between Leung King Chnen and Luk Shan Ip and the trustee in bankruptcy of Li Sheang. Mr. M. Slade, barrister (instructed by Mr. H. K. Holmes, solicitor). appeared for Leung King Chuen and Luk Shan Ip; and Mr. H. E. Pellock, K.C. barrister (instructed by Mr. C. E. Beavis, solicitor, of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist), for the trustee.
Mr. Slade said that the questions to be decided were-(u), whether the document registered in the Land Office by Memorial No. 27,346 on 29th March, 1900, constituted a valid lease or agreement for a lease for 30 years to the Wing Fang Tai shop at 872.50 a month, and (b), what is the interest of Leung King Chnen and Luk Shan Ip at the present time in the house 19. Jervois Street, on Marine Lot No. 6 A. These questions had been ordered to be tried by Sir William Goodman. There was no direction contained in the order as to who should be plaintiff and who defendant in the determina- He would ask his [tion of these questions.
Lordship's ruling on the point of on whom the burden of proof rested.
Mr. Pollock contended that the other side should be plaintiffs.
Mr. Slade held that he should not be plaintiff as his clients were in possession of the lease of the property and the trustee was trying to dispossess them of it.
His Lordship remarked that if Mr. Pollock was disputing the validity of the lease he thought he should be plaintiff.
Mr. Slade in further argument said his clients were in possession and did not want to as the trustee wanted them to do. go out, They had a lease for 30 years. That was, prima
facie, a good title. The burden of disproving its validity lay on the person who challenged it and alleged it was bad.
His Lordship after hearing further argument held that if this had been an order for ejectment, what Mr. Slade said would have been unan. swerable, but in this case the Chief Justice had directed particular questions to be tried, and he must hold Mr. Slade's clients to be plaintiffs; it lay upon them to establish the validity of the lease.
[September 5, 1904.
The Wing Fung Tai defended the sction upon the sole ground that they were in possession of the premises for an unexpired term of 30 years by a lease given in October, 1895. Before the action came on Li Wun died. Li Sheang was made plaintiff as executor. What Li Sheang's position was they did not know, but he appeared on the register as executor only. The action was tried in 1901 before Sir John Carrington and lasted some 11 days. The one question in dispute was the validity of the lease. Bir John held that the lease was a valid and subsisting lease and gave judgment for the defendants.
younger
Mr. Pollock contended that all that Sir John Carrin. ton did was to find that the plaintiff for his Lordship to say that plaintiff had failed. had not made out his case; it was quite sufficient
His Lordship said Sir John (arrington had held that there was no surrender of the 1895 lease and that the lease was a good one.
The-e were the two questions put before the Court.
Mr. Pollock argued that it was not necessary for Sir John Carrington to have stated that it was not a necessary part of the judgment. It would have been quite sufficient for the Court to have said that the plaintiff had not made out his claim to be a good one. The Court was not satisfied with plaintiff's evidence that it was a monthly tenancy, but it did not follow that it was a 30 years' tenancy.
Mr. Slade in opening the case said that in 1895 Li Wan, the father of Li Sheang, debtor was owner of Marine Lot 6 A, on which was situated No. 19, Jervois Street. Li Wun also had the right to use the name of Li Fuk Yuen Tong, the tong name of his family. He was also the owner of the Cheun Leung shop, 51 Jervois Street, which was managed by Li Wan's brother, Li Kung Kwei, a brother. In October, 1895, Li Wun leased the premises 19, Jervois Street, to the Wing Fung Tai shop for 30 years. The Wing Fung Tai was now owned by two persons only, Leung King Leung and Luk San Ip, to whom the premises were now leased. In October, 1895, the Wing Fung Tai came into possession of that lease and, were so to-day under that lease. In 1900 Li Wan endeavoured to eject the Wing Fung Tai from these premises on the allegation that they were monthly tenants and had not complied with the lawful notice to quit.
His Lordship remarked that there were only two conclusions for the learned Judge to have arrived at: either that there was a lease granted in 1895, or that there had been an aireement whereby the 30 years' lease was terminated.
Mr.Pollock said there was a third possibility: that the Judge thought plaintiff's evidence was not sufficient to establish his claim. The Judge might have said he was prepared to hold that the rent was agreed to be increased or that there was a monthly tenancy, but it did follow that he went a step further and said definitely that there was a 30 years' lease granted in 1895.
The Court adjourned.
Thursday. 1st September.
IN BANKRUPTCY.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR HENRY S. BERKELSY (CHIEF JUSTICE).
DISPUTE ABOUT A LEASE.
The hearing was resumed in the case of Li Sheang, ex parte the debtor, as between Loung King Chuen and Luk Shan Ip and the trustee in bankruptcy of Li Sheang. Mr. M. W. Slade, barrister (instructed by Mr. H. K. Holmes. solicitor), appeared for Leung King Chuen and Luk Shan Ip; and Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C., barrister instructed by Mr. C. E. Beavis, solicitor. of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist), for the trustee.
the document registered in the Land Office by Memorial No. 27,346 on 29th March, 1900, constituted a valid lease or agreement for a lease for 30 years to the Wing Fung Tai shop at $72.50 a month, and (b), what is the interest of Leung King Chuen and Luk Shan Ip at the present time in the house 19, Jervois Street, on Marine Lot No. 6 A. These questions had been ordered to be tried by Sir William Goodman.
The questions to be decided are-(a), whether
Mr. Slade in closing pointed out that the previous judgment of Sir John Carrington had been acquiesced in for several years, and as his clients, during the interval, had regularly paid their rent the validity of the lease could not be questioned.
His Lordship reserved judgment.
THE PO FUNG BANK.
A final disposal was made of the Po Fung Bank bankruptcy.
Mr. G. K. Hall Brutton, solicitor, appeared on behalf of the debtors and the Official Receiver, and asked his Lordship to approve of the scheme of composition proposed and to annul the order of adjudication.
+
Mr. E. A. Bonner, of Messrs. Dennys, and Bowley, solicitors, and Mr. P. W, Goldring, solicitor, of Mr. John Hastings's office, repre- sented certain creditors.
His Lordship having had the documents and affidavits submitted to him approved of the scheme and annulled the order of adjudication on the estate.
¡
T