1
264
although he had made repeated applications, and the defendant had failed to carry out this agree ment. Defendant claimed that the whole question was whether the document was a lease or an agreement for a lease.
Mr. Grist said it would be remembered that when the case was last argued he assumed that the Real Property Act, 8 and 9 Vic., 1845, Ch. 106, was in force in this Colony. He ad- mitted that this Act did not apply here, although it had been usually acted upon. But there was a further question with regard to jurisdic- tion under the Summary Court Ordinance of which section 19, sub-section 4, limited the jurisdiction in actions for specific perform ances of an agreement, such as a lease, to casas where the value of the property did not exceed $1,000. It was admitted that this property did exceed $1,000, and that being so there was no jurisdiction in that Court. He therefore asked that the action be dismissed.
Mr. Harding asked for a transfer of the action to the Original Jurisdiction under section 28.
Mr. Grist contended that his Lordship had no power to transfer a suit over which he had no jurisdiction. His Lordship had no juris- diction in this particular case, therefore it could not be commenced in that Court, it could not be heard, and no order could be made except an order dismissing it. A proviso at the end of section 19 provided that the judge might trans- for a case if he were satisfied it came within the provisions of the section; but this case was not within the provisions of the section, and there- fore no order cou d be made with respect to filing petitions and answers and any other matters necessary for the proper adjudication of the suit. His Lordship remarked that if an original action had been started in respect of the same property it might be more convenient to take them both together and so to transfer.
Mr. Grist pointed out that the section with regard to transfer merely contemplated that there was jurisdiction in that Court to transfer. The Court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit.
His Lordship in delivering judgment said
that when the case was last before him the defence was raised by Mr. Grist that the document sued upon was in fact a lease and not an agreement for a lease, and he said that as it was not under seal then by virtue of 8 and 9 Vic., 1845, chap. 106, the document was void as a lease. To that it was replied that though the document might be void as a lease it might be valid as an agreement for a lease. His Lord- ship thought he would be prepared to hold on similar cases that he had looked into that, as suming the Statute 8 and 9, Vic., 1845, chap. 106, had force in this Colony, though the document was void as a lease nevertheless it was not valid as an agreement for a lease, on the ground that the document sued upon had nothing in it which showed an agreement to grant a lease at all. There was nothing in the document to show the date from which the lease had been granted, whereas in an agreement for a lease a given date must be given from which to grant the lease. In this document, then, there was absolutely nothing to constitute an agree- ment to grant a lease, so that if 8 and 9 Vic., chap. 106, had been a Statute in force in this Colony he would have held that the plaintiff could not successfully go on with this action. Only that morning it had occurred to him to see whether 8 and 9 Vic., chap. 106, was in force in this Colony, and after searching he had come to the conclusion, as Mr. Grist had brought to the notice of the Court, that the Statute was not in force here. This seemed to him to be a mis- take which should be rectified, for it was just as well that the law with regard to leases here should be the same as in England; and he was not certain whether that statute had not been tacitly acted on in this Colony.
Mr. Grist said they had always acted upon it and it had come quite as a surprise to him to find it was not in force.
His Lordship went on to say that a valid defence had been set up to the effect that the ́value of the property in respect of which the lease was grant d was more than $1,00. This was admitted by Mr. Harding. Therefore under section 12 of Ordinance No 4 of 1873 this Court had no jurisdiction; for as the property admittedly exceeded $1,000 the jurisdiction of the Summary Court was ousted." In reply to
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
that he was asked by Mr. Harding to exercise any power he had conferred upon him by the Summary Jurisdiction Ordinance, section 28, No. 4 of 1873, and transfer the suit to the Original side. But it seemed to him that the power of transfer which he had tere Wax limited. The section was peculiarly phrased, but he thought the effect of it was that where he had no jurisdiction to entertain an action in that Court he also had no jurisdiction to direct a transfer of that action from that Court in the Summary Jurisdiction to the Original Juris diction. As here the value of the property in re- spect of which specific performance of the alleged agreement for a lease is alleged to be claimed ex- ceeds $1,000, it appeared that what Mr. Grist said was correct that he in the Summary Jurisdic-| tion had no authority to transfer a suit which he had no jurisdiction to entertain to the higher jurisdiction of the Original side. The action could not be entertained, and he could not order its transfer to the Original Jurisdiction; there- fore he would non-suit the plaintiff, with costs.
After hearing parties on the question of costs, His Lordship granted plaintiff costs on the first day's hearing only.
Thursday, 6th October.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR T. SERCOMBE SMITH (PUISNE JUDGE).
A PARTNERSHIP DISPUTE.
Chenk Yik Tong, Cheuk Yeung Sai and Tong Noy, plaintiffs, sued Fung Tsz Tong, Lam Pong Kee, and Tong Fu Cho for $451.16, being balance due on an account for goods sold and delivered. Mr. E. J. Grist, of Messrs. Wilkin. son and Grist, solicitors, appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. P. W. Goldring, solicitor, of Mr. G. K. Hall Brutton's office, appeared for the defendants,
The first plaintiff when called said he was u co-partner in the business of the plaintiffs at Chinkiang, and they had done business with the defendants on a large scale for a considerable time. The sum sued for was the balance due on the account.
kong he had received a sum of about 83,00 Cross-examined-Since his arrival in Hong. in part payment of his claim, but the amount sued for was still owing.
Mr. Goldring stated with regard to the defence that this was a partnership of many partners, some of them being old men and women in the interior. There was a partner- ship dispute, the matter had been before the notice of the Chief Justice, and a receiver had been or would be appointed.
After hearing further evidence. His Lordship adjourned.
S. C. FARNHAM, BOYD & CO., LD.
From a Daily News report of the shareholders' meeting at Shangbai, we have taken the follow. ing extract from the Chairman's speech. The proposal before the meeting was for reconstruc- tion with a view to accepting a proposal to purchase the company's business and under- taking by a new company to be formed and r gistered in London. There was ä very large attendance. The Chairman (Mr. J. R. Twentyman) said: The Articles of Association enable us to enter into an agree- ment, but in this case we decided to have your acceptance of the conditions before enter ng into anything definite or binding. It is proposed to make the nominal capital of the Company £1,200,000 sterling: any more money which may be required will be raised by debentures in London at 5 per cent. per annum. After the sale of this Company to the new Company, it is proposed to form another Company to take over the Old Dock and a portion of the land between the Cosmopolitan and International Docks at a valuation for wharf and godown accommodation. You will be made acquainted with all such proposals later on. We understand the pro- posed London Board of Directors are people of financial standing; it therefore seems obvious they would never go in for such an under. taking without a prospect of getting something out of the transaction.
The shareholders are masters of the situation and will always have
|
[October 8, 1904. the same power they have hitherto possessed, providing they continue to hold the majority of the shares. The Directors who are largely interested in the business are not likely to sell the undertaking which has proved such a valuable investment to them, without being sure of the benefits to be derived therefrom. The shareholders may therefore feel certain that everything will be fully considered before the agreement is signed. The conditions of the purchase are that the management in Shanghai remains the same as hitherto. (Applause.) There are two other points we wish to call your attention to. The first is after increasing the capital you are still within range of dividends from the present ear ing power. By extending the business you are in a position to increase the earning power, and if the wharf scheme is carried out, it seems to us, the shareholders should be in a very good financial position. Although this is brought before you for acceptance, it is by po
Fi means un fait accompli," but we have no reason to suppose the parties with whom we are dealing will withdraw.-The proposal was accepted.
THE YOKOHAMA SPECIE BANK,
LIMITED.
The 4th report of this Bank reads as follows: -The directors submit to you the annexed s'a'ement of the liabilities and assets of the bank, and profit and loss account for the half- year ending 30th June, 1904.
The gross profits of the bank for the past ward from last accounts, amount to 6,489,418.194 half-year, including 427,667.884 yen brought for- yen, of which 4582,417.636 yen have been deducted for current exp nses, interests, &c., leaving a balance of 1,907,000. 58 yen.
The directors now propos that 20 1,000.000 ven be added to the reserve fund, raising it to 9,520.000.000 yen, and that 100,000.00 yen be placed to the silver funds. From the remainder the directors recommend a dividend
at the rate of twelve per cent. Ler annum, which will abso b 720,000.000 yen on old shares and 360,000.000 yen on new shares.
forward to the credit of next account. making a total of 1,080,000.000 yen.“
The balance, 527,000.558 yen, will be carried
NAGATANE SOMA, Chairman. Head Office, Yokohama, 10th Sept mber, 1904.
The accounts are as follows:---
BALANCE-SHELT.
LIABILITIES.
For the year ended 30th June, 1904. Capital paid up..........
Reserve fund
Reserve for doubtful debts Reserve for depreciation of bank's pre- mises, properties, furniture, etc.. Reserve for silver funds Deposits current, fired, etc.).............. Bills payable, bills re-discounted, ac- ceptances, and other sums due by the bank Dividends unclaimed
Yen. 18,000,000.000 9,320,000.000 235,381.830
607,315.000
400,000,000 72,772,029.062
94,674,192.114 5,194.520 Amount brought forward from last ac-
count
427,667.884 Net profit for the past half-year........ 1,479,332.674
Yon 197,921,143,984
Cash account :—
In band
ASSETA.
Yen. 6.664.228.250 6,860,130.990
•
Yen.
13,524,359,240 19,986,648.440
At bankers
Bills discounted, lo ns, advances, &c. 51 895,124. 20 Investments in public securities Bills receivable and other mms due to
the bank
Bullion and foreign money Bank's premises, properties, furniture,
&c.
.110,284,672.504 161,514.93:J
2,068,823.950
Yen 197,921,178.084
Yen.
PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT.
To current expenses, interests, &c ........4.582 417.636 200,600.000 To reserve fund To reserve for silver fund
100,000,000 To dividend-6.000 yen per share for 120,00a old shares:==720,000,000 yen : and 3 000 yen per share for 120,000 new shares 360,000,000 yen .. .....1,080,000,000 balance carried forward to next ac-
To
527,000:558
Yen 6,489,418.194