March 11, 1905.]
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
165
a good voyage and a very pleasant holiday | plaintiff $5,000 damages. (3) For such further signed a promissory note for $150. He paid (Applause)
relief as the Court should deem moet.
Mr. RUMJAHN-I endorse every word Colonel The Hon. Mr. E. H. Sharp, K.C., instructed | Webb has said. Your long connection with the by Mr. R. Harding (of Messrs. Ewens and Colony beats you to carry out your duties as Harston) appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. president of this Board, and has made you an
H. E. Pollock, K.C., instructed by Mr. Almada eminent president. We have had much pleasure. Castro for the defendent. working with you since the new Public Health and Building Ordinance was enacted. Under your presidency the Colony has at least been saved thousands of dollars in carrying out sani- tation, especially with regard to cleansing work. As I understand, it used to cost the Colony $80,000, but since the work has been under you this as been reduced to $7,000. I wish you
a very pleasant voyage and speedy return (Ap plause).
Dr, ATKINSON-Thank you very much for your kind words. Since the present Board has been constituted most important work has fallen to it, the carrying out of the new Public Health and Building Ordinance. Since this was enacted it was found impossible to carry out
the ordinance as it was at first drafted. Several Committees of the Board sat and considered how it might be made more workable. The result W28 that the Government passed an amendment ordinance which rendered it possible for the Chinese houses to have at any rate two cubicles on a floor. As the Ordinance was at first arranged it was impossible for many houses to have any cubicles.
With a Board constituted such as this, eleven members, one cannot always see alike, but I think that on the whole the work has been carried on harmoniously. I have to thank the Chinese members for persuading the Chinese to cleanse their dwellings more thoroughly. Under Sir Henry Blake the Chinese first realised how important this cleansing was. It was explained to the Chinese what was meant by cleansing their dwellings. This cleansing must be done if we wish to stay plague, and the more this is impressed on the Chinese the better it will be for the Colony. Cleanliness is the bedrock of sanitation. To show that our efforts have met with
some success there has been
a per- ceptible diminution in the death rate. The death rate per thousand per annum has diminished among Chinese from 21.93 in 1902 to 17.18 in 1904. Among non-Chinese it has diminished from 19 in 1902 to 12.48 in 1904. In addition to this, measures have been taken by the Government to stop the ravages of malaria by the training of nullahs, removing of under- growth and the filling in of swamps. The number of malarial patients admitted into the hospitals has diminished from 1,393 in 19:1 to 490 in
1934. The number of deaths from this cause has also diminished, from 374 in 1901 to 301 in 1904. There has thus been a marked diminution of malaria
and a great saving of human life. Last year there was iess plague than any year since 1897, but it is very dangerons to prophesy, because there are many facts about the life history of the plague bacilli of which we are as yet ignorant. If we can only persuade the Chinese to help us in the cleansing I believe and trust that this year you will not have a more severe outbreak than last summer.
SUPREME COURT.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
Monday, 6th March.
BEFORE SIR H. S. BERKELEY (CHIEF JUSTICE).
WONG LUT WAN V. TAM CHAK U,
The hearing of this action was commenced on the 15th September last and was adjourned on the 16th September,
44
The plaintiff claimed—(1) That specific per- formance be decreed of an agreement in writing made between the plaintiff (as vendor) and the defendant (as purchaser) on the 28th May 1903 for the sale of certain property registered in the Hongkong Land Office as the remaining portion of Inland Lot No. 1216," subject to a certain indenture of mortgage registered in the Land Office by Memorial No. 29,392, and to the payment of $27,500 portion of the principal sum of $100,000 and the interest thereon thereby secured." (2) That the defendant be ordered to pay
The defendant's counsel (Mr. M. W. Slade) at the previous bearing claimed the right to begin, and the plaintiff's counsel concurred. The defendant stated that when the contract was made, the property was misrepresented to him. It consisted of six houses in Richmond Terrace, which the defendant agreed to buy for 861.500. It was stated that the property was at that time let for 8650 per month, but this
afterwar is proved to be false. The defendant did not inspect the houses till after the sale.
The plaintiff stated that in the middle of May 1903 he entrusted the property in question to a broker, with permission to sell at $70.000 At the end of the month the broker met the defendant and mentioned the property to him. The defendant inspected the property. Only one house was then occupied, the rental being $96 per month. but another house was let for $110. Later the defendant saw the broker and offered 860,00 1, and, with the plaintiff's consent, a bargain was finally struck at $61,500. Nothing about the rental was mentioned.
It was stated in evidence that the houses were
situated in a fever district, and it was difficult to let them on this account.
Was
The defendant's case was that ho induced into the contract by fraud, the rental at $6.50 appearing in the preliminary agreement. At first the rental was not stated, and defendant The broker pointed this out to the broker, went back to the plaintiff and rental, $650 was added.
The plaintiff, on the other hand, brought evidence to prove that the words "rental, were not on the document when it was $650
19
handed to the defendant. They had been added, and the defendant was uttering a forgery..
Hon. Mr. Sharp called the head Chinese, writer of the Registrar General's Office, to compare the writing of the body of the docu- ment in question with the words relating to rental.
Mr. Pollock objected to this man's evidence being received as expert evidence, and the Chief Justice held with him till Mr. Sharp showed that his witness was employed in the Registrar General's Office distinguishing, by comparisons of handwriting, whether certain documents were genuine.
Witness, Au Fung Chee, said the handwrit ings were different, the characters for "rental. $650" being an imitation of the style of the document.
Hon. Mr. Sharp-I shall not ask your Lord- ship to state that someone has committed a forgery, but will ask if the defendant has proved
his case.
His Lordship-The strongest point against the defendant is the great difference between the real rental and that on the document. The broker may have added the words.
The
Hon. Mr. Sharp produced specimens of the broker's handwriting which witness said wers quite different from the added words. broker's handwriting was a "coolie's "; the man would not be capable of adding the words.
Mr. Pollock drew attention to differences, símilar to those pointed out by witness, in writ- ing admitted to be that of one person.
J
His Lordship-The only question is, were these words added for the purposes of this case.
Hon. Mr. Sharp That is so, My Lord.
The defendant and the broker wers faced The latter said he never said the houses were let for $650, and the defendant said that this was false,
The case was adjourned.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR ME. T. SERCOMBE
SMITH (PUISNI JUDGE.)
Mr. E. J. Grist appeared on behalf of Booths Singh, an Indian watchman employed at Kowloon, who sued Young Ab Fat, bar-boy at the Police Station, for $181. A promissory note for $150 was produced, the balance being interest due on same. Defendant stated that the plaintiff lent him $100-on condition that he
|
interest for eight months, #80 in all. The interest claimed was due.
Judgment for the plaintiff with costs.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
Tuesday, 7th March:
BEFORE SIR H. 8. BERKELEY (CHIBF
JUSTICE).
WONG LUT WÂN V, TAM CHAK U. The hearing of this action was concluded. The plaintiff claimed-(1) That specific per-
formance be decreed of an agreement in writing made between the plaintiff (as vendor) and the defendant (as purchaser) on the 28th May 1903 for the sale of osrtain property registered in the Hongkong Land Office as the remaining portion of Inland Lot No. 1216," subject to a certain indenture of mortgage registered in the Land Office by Memorial No. 29,392, and to the payment of $27,500 portion of the principal sum of $100,000 and the interest” thorsm
thereby secured. (2) That the defendant by ordered to pay plaintiff $5,000 damages. (3) For such further relief as the Court should deem meet.
The Hon. Mr. E.H. Sharp. K.C.. instructed by Mr. R. Harding (of Messrs. Ewens and Harston) appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C., instructed by Mr. Almada e Castro for the defendant.
Evidence concluded, Hon. Mr. Sharp, on behalf of the plaintiff, said:-Nothing has occurred duing the course of the evidence to modify the case. The onus probandi is very important in all cases, such as this, in which the evidence is conflicting. The onus probandi here is on the defendant, who admits wholly the contract mentioned in the statement of
claim. That which he says is that he was induced to enter into this contract, and he must establish this. The defendant's case is that he was induced to sign this agreement by the misrepresentation that the houses were at that time let for $650. As corollary he has to deny that he inspected the property before signing the agreement, because the houses were in fact empty If he inspected the houses he knew the facts, he could not say that he be- lieved that the houses were let. The property, the defendant says, was only let for $200 whereas it was stated to be let for $650. Therefore an important point in this case is the point of these inspections before the agree- ment was signed. There is conflicting evidence. If the question of that document stood alone, I could not prove who wrote the additional words (words relating to rental on the pre- liminary agreement). The real point in this case is the visits and inspections which were made by the defendant, as I think we have proved.
His Lordship-A cursory examination would not be sufficient.
Hon. Mr. Sharp-If he went through the houses he knew whether they were occupied or empty. I do not say he valued the property, but a man could not go through that row of houses without noticing whether they were If there had been sufficient occupied or not. evidence that the man did not inspect the houses I should not be surprised in Your Lordship finding for the defendant; I think, however, there is evidence here to form a contrary opinion.
think Your Lordship can only put limited importance on the evidence I brought regarding that document. The defendant has denied every interview for, I submit, the purposes of this case. If Your Lordship comes to the conclusion that these inspections were in fact made the defend- ant was speaking what was not true, and no court could take any part of his evidence--he denies every interview till the time of the agreement.
Hon. Mr. Sharp then reviewed the evidence, and mid: It is overwhelm- ingly in favour of the supposition that the It was defendant inspected the property. a contract of $61,500, and the property was E pat it extremely conveniently situated. that it is absurd to believe that this man would buy this property without inspection. I have never heard of a Chinaman buying property without inspection; it is well known that they-