October 8, 1904.]
being arrived at in favour of the process Personally he was of opinion that it was a very effective measure as a plague prevent tive, but he did not think the time had arrived for the Board to make a recommendation for its use generally on ships in the Harbour.
Mr. HEWETT stated that 1-8 had intended to make a few remarks on the subject, but in view of what the President had said he would defer them till a more suitable time. He understood the question had been raised with a view of adopting the Paris Convention as opposed to the Venice Convention with regard to the treat- ment of ships. A letter from the Colonial Secretary would be considered at a meeting of the committee of the Chamber of Commerce 10-morrow (Wednesday) with reference to the Paris Convention.
The PRESIDENT remarked that that matter had not been referred to the Board.
AN APPLICATION.
Application was made to erect a water-closet and one dry closet on Inland Lot No. 7, in Stanley Street.
The Sanitary Surveyor (Mr. H. T. Jackman) reported that the position of the yard where it was proposed to erect the closets, being as it was enclosed all round, almost compelled the use of water-closets in preference to priviese The property abutted on Queen's Rod Central and Stanley Street. The capacity of the water tank, 300 gallons, was amp.e. especially as it would be supplied from & well The existing drain underneath would be examined before connection was made.
Dr. Pearse minuted that he was not in favour of the multiplication of water-closets in the Colony. Blocks of offices, hotels and clubs were, he thought, the only places where the Board had decided to consider the question of per- mission of water-closets. He considered tat properly managed dry privies were safer than water-closets. In any case the patterns for the closets ought to be submitted for approval.
Mr. Ramjahn minuted: I do not see why water-closets should only be confined to bloe s of offices, hotels and clubs. They are decidedly an improvement on our present pail system. If an independent supply can be provided for flushing them I do not 800 why we should refuse any application. The appli- cant does not state where the supply of water is to come from.
Mr. Hewett-Refuse.
The PRESIDENT explained that the necessary water was obtained from a well on the premises which were still occupied by Messrs. A. S. Watson & Co. Seven Europ ans lived there, also Chinese. He thought that water-closets were very much more sanitary than privies provided they could get a water supply other than the public water supply.
Mr. HEWETT said it seemed to him, in view of the general principle laid down by the Board, they should be very careful in considering this proposal. If they agreed to this building being fitted with water-closets there was no reason why they should not agree to water- closets being all wed in any Chinese shop or factory in the town. This was not a water- closet for a few Europeans in a hotel, office or club, but it was a proposal to start a I w departure-to put water-closets in a build- ing which was mainly used by Chinese.
Mr. RUMJAHN held that water-closets were far more preferable to the present system, and more sanita y.
Mr. PEARSE proceeded to make a statement on the matter, saying that although the intro- duction of water-closets in England had been followed by a reduction of the death-rate from typh id fever which result had been due not so much to the water system of sewage as to the doing away of leaking underground cesspools liable to contaminate the water supply, he did not think the time had come in Hongkong for the introduction of water-closets, and he was not in favour of supplying them to the Chinese generally.
Mr. LAU CHU PAK said that in this case the water-closets would be used by the Euro- peans alone.
Mr. HEWETT remarked that he would not oppose the application if it was for the use of Europeans only.
The PRESIDENT stated that as this building did not come within the category of buildings in which the committee of the
|
|
|
263
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
Board hati decided that there could bejo appeal ( 904) 2 Ch. 93, Justice Farwell made water-closets placed he moved that the applica- the followit g observations on the appointment tion be refused.
Mr HEWETT seconded, and the motion
. CRICKET CLUB PAVILION.
of a receiver by way of equitable execution, was and I see no reason why they are not applicable adopted.
to the case of a receiver of partnership asse:s in an action between partners. His Lordship says Application was mide for permission to erect" Whatever might be the construction of the a water-closet and two urinals at the new "ppointment of a receiver by way of equitable? Cricket Club pavilion.
execution, as applied to a char.e in real estate, Mr. Hewett minuted :—Where does the water I am of opinion it is such as regards person- come from? Grant, if a well can be provided.alty that when the order is in the form of The CHAIRMAN, remarking that the water appointing a Receiver upon giving of security was to be got by sinking a well, moved that the his appointment is not eff cted till the security application be granted.
is given. It is a conditional appointment and the giving of security is a condition precedent
Mr. HEWETT Seconded, and the motion was agreed to.
WATER ANALYSIS.
Mr. A. C. Franklin, Government Analyst, reported that his analysis for September showed the public water supplies to have been of excellent quality.
This was all the business of public importance before the meeting.
and the Receiver unless he has com- leted his title cannot claim payment of the money! There will, therefore, be judgment for plaint ffs with costs in the two Summary actions, but, as Mr. Grist is satisfied by the payment already made by the defendants to the Receiver, who has since furnished the requisite security, execution as regards the amount claimed will be stayed sine d'e. As regards the costs: the defendants in each action will have to pay
the costs incurred in his action. I cannot see my way to order the costs to be paid by the Receiver out of the assets of the partnership. This would be to impoverish the partnership assets and to punish the partners for taking an entirely legitimate course to BEFORE HIS HONOUR T. SERCOMBE SMITH | confirm their claim as partners.”
(PUISNE JUDGE).
SUPREME COURT.
Monday, 3rd October.
IN SUMMARY JURDISDICTION,
OFFICIAL RFCEIVER'S POWERS.
action was
Tuesday, 4th Octuber.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION,
(PUISNE JUDGE.)
ACTION BY A BLACKSMITH.
In delivering judgment in actions Nos. 1,311 and 1,314, the Yu Loong firm against Shiu (heong and Kwong Tai, his Lordship BEFORE HIS HONOUR T. SEECOMBE SMITH said-On August 29th last an brought in the Original Jurisdiction by two partners of the Yu Loong firm against the third partner c'aiming to have account taken of the
The Choy Yuen firm, of Tan chow, Canton, partnership dealings and to have the affairs of with the Hongkong address of 2, Queen's the partnership woud up. On September 17 Road East, sud the Nam Hing fir u, traders, and 19 two actions in the Summary Jurisdic- 265, Des Voeux 'oad West, for $255.50 for tion were brought in the name of the partner goods sold and delivered. Mr. Otto Kong ship to recover from two firms-Shiu Cheong Sing. solicitor, appeared for the plaintiffs, and and Kwong Tai--the price of goods sold and Mr. H. K. Holmes, solicitor, for the defendants. delivered. After these last two actions had been launched, and in con-equence of one, at least, of them having been brought, the defendant in the Original Jurisdiction action applied by summons for an order for the appointment of a Receiver of the credits, assets and effects of the partnership. This summons was heard on September 23, and Mr. S. A. Seth was appointed Interim Receiver, giving security for $1,500 to the satisfaction of the Registrar. The order as drawn up refers to Mr. Seth as Receiver, not as Inter m Receiver, and embodies the production of the security. On the same
After hearing evidence his Lordship said the day, September 23, the hearing of the two Summary Jurisdiction actions was fired for question a ose in this case whether the sale was a sale outright or was a mere forwarding of the September 28. When these actions came on goods for sale on commission. The evidence for trial it was stated in ourt that both defend- showed that a special mark had been put on the an s had paid the amounts claimed from th msickles because they were being consigned to a to the Receiver, Mr. Seth, who it was admitted
Was
Mr. Kong Sing stated that the plaintiffs were blacksmiths and makers of sickles. On 11th arch a contract was entered into between the part es for the supply by the plaintiffs to the defendants of 3,200 sickles, and these were for- warded on the 10th of July. A demand was afterwards made for payme t, and in reply the defendants sent back a quantity of sickles, asking the plaintiffs to tate delivery as part payment-in fact, almost full payment. Plain- tiffs said these sickles were not the sickles supplied by them, and refused to take delivery.
special firm. For some reason or other the defendan firm returned some goods, and he was convinced that the goods returned were old stuff, probably goods that had never been received from the plaintiffs. He held that the contract was for the sale of the goods out and out. Judgment must be for plaintiffs with
costs.
Wednesday, 5th October.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
HIS HONOUR T. SERCOMBE SMITH
(PUISNE JUDGE.)
had not, on September 28, furnished the ecessary ecurity Mr. Grist, who appeared for the plaintiff in both Summary actions and for the defendant in the Original action, asked
costs, for judgment with who Mr. Hastings, which
on the opposite side in the three actions, opposed, on the ground that the appointment of a Receiver ousted every person from receiving debts due to the partnership, and that to give judgment against the defendants in the Summary actions would be to compel them to pay these debts twice over. Mr. Grist based his application on the ground that the appointment of the Re- BEFORE ceiver did not take effect until it had been per- of the security fected by the furnishing required. I am of opinion that Mr. Grist s con- tention must prevail. The appointment of The case was again called in which Chan Kin Mr. Seth as Receiver was clearly constituted Cho, trader 46, North Station Street, Yaumati, upon his giving security: until he gave that sued han Ting On, 48, Sheung Wan Street, security his appointment was not completed; Samsuipo, for specific performance of an and in the absence of any authorisation to agreement and $500 damages. Mr. R. Harding, act before he had furnished the security he was of Messrs. Ewens and Harston, so icitors, not duly constituted to receive any of the appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. E. J. assets of the partnership until the security Grist, of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist, hat been furnished. The plaintiffs in the Sum-solicitors, for the defendant. +laintiff's case wɑs mary action were, therefore, not ba red from that about the beginning of the current Chinese their ordinary remedy of an action at law to year he entered into negoti tions with defendant 1000ver d bts due to them as partners, and any to lease certain premises at Samanipo. On 16th judgment they mi, ht obtai”.... Iu. Bidant v. April a six years' lease was signed. But the Fowler (1804) 1 Ch. 658 at page 662, confirmed 'plaintiff bad never been let into possession,"
THE REAL PROPERTY ACT.