January 9, 1905.]
SUPREME COURT.
Friday, 30th December.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR ME. T. SERCOMBE SMITH (PUISNE Judge).
DEUTSCH ASIATISCHE BANK V. THE WUI SHING HING BANK.
The hearing of this action was continued. The plaintiffs alleged that they had suffered damage by reason of a breach by the defendants of a contract dated the 4th October, 1904, made between the plaintiffs and the defendants, - whereby the defendants agreed to purchase from the plaintiffs as erling draft on London, 1ay- ́able on demand for the sum of £2,000 sterling at exchange ls. 97d, and which said contract was to complete the'r purobase on the 30th November. 19 4, and the plaintiffs had suffered damages to the extent of $785.85 by the de- fendants' breach of their contract.
As before, Mr. H. E. Po'look, K.C., instruct- ed by Mr. H. J. Gedge (of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master) appeared for the plaintiff bank; and Mr. N. Ferrers, instructed by Mr. P. W. Goldring (of Mr. G. K. H. Brutton's office), for the defendant bank.
Mr. H. Figge, manager of the Deutsch- Asiatische Bank, deposed: An effort to compromise reached my hearing on the 3rd December. I saw three strange men inside the bank, and one of them was brought to me by the Compradore. $1,000 was offered in settlement of this and other matters between our bank and the defendant bank. I refused.
Cross-examined-The Compradors does no business which is not referred to me; he vouches for the Chinese whom he introduces. In my private book Chinese customers may be men- tioned merely as Chinese, but in the other books it is different. Should there be any loss in this matter it would fall on the Compradore, I do not know how they (the Chinese) would manage in such a case. For all I know they might divide the loss among themselves. The demand draft' was not an actual draft; I have to sell it later. An original draft was not in existence, but I had to draw one later to cover myself. If the defendants had paid the $785.84 I should not have had to draw a fresh
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
Witness-I would not like to give an opinion on other people's business.
Re-examined-I did actually sell to cover myself; I had sold to him originally £2,000, and had to buy a similar amount. Some assets of the bank are kept in sterling, and some in dollars. These transactions have to be kept equally balanced, as much as possible, each day I may be a few days overdue, but I have to balance each day if possible.
Further evidence ws led, and the osse adjourned.
THE HO FAT KER v. LI KAN TAI.
The hearing of this action o me on for the third time. The plaintiff claimed 8150 plus $10.50, $10 being costs and $0.50 expense on account of a bailiff. Mr O. D. Thomson appeared on behalf of the plaintiff firm of contractors, doing business at No. 49, Queen's Road East. The defendant, a junk owner whose junk is under arrest, Was represented by Mr. Dixon (of Mr. John Hasting's office). plaintiff alleged that the money had been lent by him to the defendant.
The
At the previous hearing the defendant said he had paid the money to Ho Fat, a partner in the Ho Fat Kee shop. and a witness for the defence said he had seen Ho Fat at a quarter to two that afternoon, just outside the Supreme Court, but, instead of waiting to give evidence, he had gone off in a ricksha with the plaintiff.
Ho Fat appeared in Court and gave evidence. He said that he was one of the partners in the Ho Fat Kee, he had been repaid the money in question. and the receipt produced by the defendant was a true one. On the previous occasion he had come to the Court to give evidence, when he met th plaintiff, who man- aged the business. The plaintiff told him to go to the shop, saying that the matter befors the Court did not concern him-it was a matter between Ma Seung Tong and Li Kan Tai, the defendant. The plaintiff then took him to Mr. Thomson's office, where he was detained. They said the police wanted to arrest him, and he was shoved into a closet.
th
His Honour asked the plaintiff to show res on why he should not be sent to prison for wilful perjury.
The plaintiff said that Ho Fat was not a partner, and there was no proof that he had received the money.
His Honour sentenced the man to six weeks' hard labour, and gave judgment for the defen
Wednesday, 4th January.
draft to cover myself. Say, for instance, that I sell to any man £1, 00; this £1,000 I buy, ifdant with costs. possible, at onee. If I failed to do so I should be speculating on exchange. I buy this thousand; if it is not taken up I have to sell again to cover my purchase. The original draft was not drawn because it was n t taken up, but two others were. A draft cannot be drawn fill the demand draft is du
Mr. Ferrers-If these two are taken up in January no demand draft will have to be drawn ?
Witness- I have to cover myself. If he pays the difference he comes tó me and offers that I should buy what I have sold to him. and I have to sell to some ne else against this have to sell some man sterling.
Mr. Ferrers—All this is fictitious!
Mr. Figge-It is not fiotitions, Witness-They will be drawn to else, but not to him.
IN APPELLATE JURISDICTION. ·
BEFORE SIR H. S. BERKELEY (CHIEF JUSTICE) AND MR. T. SERCOMBE
SMITH (PUISNE JUDGE).
TANG Táz U V. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL. The sixth day of the hearing of this appeal. As before. Messrs. M. W. Slade and H. G. Calthrop. instructed by Mr. J. Harston, ap. Ipeared for the appellant; the Hon E. H. Sharp. K.C., and Mr. H E. Pollock, K C., "instructed by Mr. F. B. L. Bowlay (Crown Solicitor), for the Attorney-General.
someone
Mr. Ferrers-Is it not true that you would not do anything, but just take the difference. Is not all this something nothing?
Witness-No. I have to cover myself, and sell to someone else secure myself. There is nothing more as far as the man is concerned, but there is as far as the bank is concerned.
Mr. Ferrers-Would it not be possible to do as I say?
Witness-Yeg, but if I did so I am afraid I Mr. Ferrers-He would have made profit if exchange had gone down ?
would be dismissed to-morrow.
Witness-It all dep-nds what he did with the money; he might have bought goods which had gone home,
Mr. Ferrera--You must admit this; we will get no further if you do not (Laughter).
Witness-There are, of course, speculations in exchange at Hongkong. If a man has no other business in connection with a transaction like this it is speculation in exchange-deal- ing in differences I object to deal in differences. Mr. Ferrers I su; pose it is done outside ?
-
身
Mr. Slade continuing his case for the appel- lant said that when the Court ross (on the 16th ult.) he had dealt with the preliminary histori- cal matter connected with the case, and was about to deal with the question arising as to the effect of certain documents relating to the obligations and duties of the Crown-or the Chinese Government-with respect to reclama- tion. The first question which had to be dealt with was the date when land was liable. under Chinese law, to taxation-to be assessed for taxation, shing-fo. As applying to sand considering the effect of the regulations laid down in the rules-for the Board of Revenue it was most important to recognise that there was additional taxation in Kwangtung-the chik-lo tax-which according to the evidence of the
banks the time laid down was six years.
Hon. Mr. Sharp-I think it is common ground, but we say no tax is levied on unpro-` ductive land.
The Chief Justice-However that may be, no tax was paid.
Mr. Slade-It was not paid because it was never asked for.
The Chief Justice-The conclusion that it was never asked for is arrived at- ?
Mr. Blade-On the evidence.
Hon. Mr. Sharp—I do not think there is any such evidence.
Mr. Slade-When is the time for assessment under the general law? Our case is that if the land is not fertile assessment is postponed, whils the Crown's case is that if the land is not fertile the grant is cancelled.
The Puisse Judge-That is within the six years.
Hon. Mr. Sharp-We say brought under cultivation.
Mr. Blade-Note my friend's words, My Lord! A distinction has been drawn between brought under cultivation and fertile.
The Chief Justice-Land brought under cultivation is fertile.
Hon. Mr. Sharp-Exactly, that is the only distinction we draw.
Mr. Slade continued his argument all day, the case being adjourned
Thursday, 5th January.
IN APPELLATE JURISDICTION. BEFORE SIR H. § BERKELEY (ČSIEF JUSTICE) AND MR. T. SERCOMBE SMITH (PUISNE JUDGE.)
TÁNG TẠZ U V. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL. -The seventh day of the hearing of this appeal. As before, Messrs. M. W. Slade and A. G Calthrop, instructed by Mr. J. Harston, ap- peared for the appellant; the Hon. E. H. Sharp, K C., and Mr. H. E, Pollock, K.C., instructed by Mr. F. B. L. Bowley (Crown Solicitor), for the Attorney-General.
Mr. Slade again addressed the Court on behalf of the appellant all day. In his opening remarks, previous to discussing translations in detail, he said-When we rose I was about to deal with a passage from the rules of the Board of Revenue, which as translated con- tains the only direction that has been pat shall be made forward that reclamation
within a certain time-that is the only passage laid down stating that there is a a time- limit for reclamation. The first comment I · make with regard to that limit-water fields must be brought under onltivation within six years; dry fields within ten years--is that in the original document no words for “must be "
occur.
In the afternoon the case was adjourned.
MARINE MAGISTRATE'S
COURT.
Friday, 30th December.
BEFORE HON. Capt. L. A. W. BarnES. LAWRENCE (Marinm MagistEA7 E).
DISOBEYING LAWFUL ORDERS, William Lewis Smith, master of the Ard va, charged J. H. Perkins, boatswain of the said ship, with wilfully disobeying lawful orders on the 30th instant, in Victoria Harbour.
William Lewis Smith deposed:-On the night of the 27th, defeudant went ashore with- out permission. He returned this (Friday) refused to proceed with his morning and When
work. He also refused to proceed to sea.
By the Court: Defendant appeared to be sober.
rown as far as he could see, would be included in the shing-fo taxation. He had already shown that the chik-lo tax was included in the regular land tax imposed on land before it was under cultivation. The appellant's case was that under the rules of the Board of Revenue land was not assessed to the regular land tax till it was productive.
Defendant stated :—I do not refuse duty. I only refuse to go to sea, because I cannot get on with some of the crew.
By the Court:-I persist in my refusal not to go in the ship,
The Magistrate sentenced the defendant be deprived of two days' pay: to be f for two weeks with hard labour, and back on his ship should abo expiration of the sentence.