►
March 11, 1905.]
convenience, when goods are blooking up the godown.
Cross-examined-Notice would not be given in the case of short delivery cargo.
Mr. Steavenson produced a notice from the P & O. Company.
Witness-This is a notice for cargo returned, Mr. Stevenson-But it says "short delivery;" I should like Your Lordship to read this notice. Witness-It is customary for consignees to enquire about goods, and send in claims within a reasonable time.
Two Chinese godown men in the employ of the Toyo Kisen Kaisha gave evidence.
com-
|
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
|
:
187
the plaintiffs, and Mr. M. J. Stephens for the defendants.
Mr. Stephens asked that the matter be referred to the Registrar, as the defendants admitted that a certain sum was due. The defendants the claim was excessive; the plaintiffs were The stock list took
said
up 38 foolscap pages; it would be much better to refer the matter to the Registrar.
case
Mr. Grist-It is the question of a man's fee; it is not a ques ion for the Registrar.
His Honour-We will get on with the case. Mr. Grist-It appears that the plaintiff in this was employed by the de- make & valnation of a ship. fendant to chandler's business. At the time Messrs. Powell and Company were thinking of taking over the business. The plaintiffs valued the stock and spent considerable time over it. The de- fendants offered the plaintiffs $300, $350, $400 and $450, and finally paid $400 into court.
H. F. Carmichael gave evidence. He had made the valuation in accordance with an agres- ment made with Mr. Gaskell, and had employed Mr. Galt to assist him in va'ning the stock, which included the valuing of a steam launch. A hundred dollars was the usual charge for surveying and valuing a steam launch. had been verbally offered $500 by Mr. D. Macdonald, and he understood that Mr. was acting on behalf of Mr. Macdonald Gaskell.
He
H. Eyre, manager of the defendant firm, said he thought the price was exorbitant. In answer to His Honour he said "prices are a little higher at Hongkong than at Home.”
In giving judgment His Honour said that the defendants must have believed that Mr. Carmichael was competent or they would not have employed him to do the work. It was s pity that nothing was arranged beforehand about the fee; and was also regrettable that there was no scale of fees to guide the Court Mr. Skelton thought the work in this matter. was worth the money. Judgment for the plaintiffs with costs.
he pointed to Mr. Mau Fung, but in the witness box he said "I did not point out that man to Mr. Burke." I take Mr. Burke's word against that of the Chinese. He had pointed him out, but on the evidence I cannot come to any other conclusion than that he made no communication that there 14 cases arrived by the Olym-willing to pay a fair sum. pia. It is quite clear that there was no notice to the plaintiff before the 17th September, and that was certainly a very recent date. I come to the question of was it the duty of the defendant to give notice that these things were in the godown? I take it there must be some difference made between goods ordinarily landed His Honour in giving judgment said:-In and goods short landed. I think it unreasonable this action the plaintiffs claim from the defen. to expect that a consignes to whom you have dants $117.60 for their neglect in not duly admitted your indebtedness of short landed forwarding to them 14 cases of sugar corn which cargo should be expected to constantly make had been short landed. It appears that the enquiries and waste time finding out constantly whether these goods have arrived. The ques- plaintiffs, the Mutual Stores, ordered from a certain association in San Francisco some goods tion of making allowance on account of the through their agent in the Colony, Mr. Connell | Nippon Muru beiog taken up by the Japanese Government was not raised, and I am not These goods were shipped subsequently on board the Nippon Maru; and when the Nippon going to consider it. I am going to take Maru got to a port in Japan she was the line of a steamship company which ought mandeered by the Japanese Government for to deliver goods in one lot, but fails in this naval purposes and her cargo, including these daty, and having failed in this does not goods, was transhipped on to another ship. give notice that these cases have been landed. It was supposed that all these goods were tran- ! Prima facie, under these circumstances it seems shipped in the Shawmut, but it turned out that that a reasonable duty is cast on the shipping they were not all on that ship. Some came company to give notice of the arrival of short down subsequently in the Olympia. Now, landed cargo. There is not a shadow of doubt when the Shawmut arrived in this Colony a that such notice was never given. Contrary to A H. Skelton, of Messrs. Lane, Crawford and Company, gave an opinion that $500 was a notice was inserted in the newspaper informing the reasonableness of the whole transaction, I the consignees that goods transhipped from the am told that the custom of this port is that ship-reasonable charge. He had valued stocks for fire insurance companies, and charged as much as Nippon Maru to Shawmut had arrived and ping lines should in no case of the arrival of were being put into the godown at Kennedy short landed cargo give notice to the persons $100 for an afternoon's work. Town, and could be obtained from here or from to whom the cargo belongs. and that the usual lighters. A notice was put in the paper that course of business here is for the persons to consignees should take delivery before the whom cargo belongs to continually go to the 6th February, and would be charged rent after: shipping company to find out whether their wards, and the shipowner would not be respon-goods have arrived. Proof offered to me that there is no customf such notice is the evidence sible for fire risks, and no claims would be enter tained after the 8th February. That in fact was given by Mr. Lewis of the P. & O. Company, anotice that these goods were in the Colony. Well, his evidence goes so far as this: he The notice seems to have been specially to con- knows of no regular fixed custom for shipping signees, and not to persons who took cargo lines to give notice of the arrival of short landed from consignees. The Mutual Stores were not cargo, but he might say that if it was con- venient to the shipping line to get the goods consignees, so as between the parties in this
off their lighters they did send out notices action the bill of lading plays no part. The plaintiffs went to the defendants' godown on saying that these goods had arrived; but I should be very loth to take, from the mouth the 3rd February having previously obtained a delivery order from the consignee, Mr. Connell, of that witness only, proof of the custom to get 25 cases of sugar corn; but, on arriving of the port. I should want more than one at the godown, they found only eleven cases had witness to establish the custom of the port. On the other hand, there is no direct evidence come, and the other 14 cases had not been landed. The defendant's godown keeper gave of a gentleman from one of the shipping_com-. the plaintiff a note that 14 cases had been short panies, but there is evidence of a gentleman landed, and this note was made out to the who has trausactions with shipping offices, and Mutual Stores. Now what is the effect of that is constantly the consignee or owner of cargo,. contract; these persons say that you admitted and has specific instances of notices concerning: on the 3rd February your liability when you cargo ordinarily and short delivery cargo. I have state that 14 cases of your sugar cora ought to not only the evidence of this gentleman saying have been landed. It was not landed; and that such is the practice, but also the evidence The there is an admission by the defendants thaq of Mr. Mau Fung as far as he knows. they should have landed these 14 cases of sugar whole thing comes to this:-nothing regarding joorn. The plaintiffs say
We waited and the custom here in this respect has been proved. I am therefore thrown back on what is the more waited for these things; and on the 26th
reasonable, whether a shipping company not August, not having heard of them, sent in a claim for the value of the goods." The de- having delivered goods a part of a bill of lading fendants did not reply till three weeks' later should give notice when the goods arrive, or when they wanted the plaintiffs to take de- whether the consignee should be obliged to livery of these goods which the plaintiffs make enquiries. It seems to me reasonable and refused to do, because they were no good for good sense that notice should be given. Conse- purposes of sale. The defendants, the plaintiffs quently, I think the shipowner in such case say, are in fault because they did not take should give notice. I come to the question of delivery of these goods before. They say "It whether these men can recover the damages was not our duty to tell you that these goods they claim, as they are not party to the bill of arrived, and if it was we did so on the 22nd lading, and I think they can, the defe dants March." The evidence on that int is that having admitted them to be the owners of the of Mr. Burke and the godown keeper. Mr. goods. There seems to be no question as to the Burke said "I told our godown man to tell amount of damages, and I accept the evid. them about these 14 cases." This godown man
ence of Mr. Mau Fung that the goods goes to the Mutual Stores and asks them to take delivery of cargo out of the Olympia I asked him if he said any
at all thing else
and
No. he said Then I said "Did you say nothing about these 14 cases," and he answeret "Yes." He was given every opportunity, and I cannot therefore take his statement. So I consider he did not give the plaintiffs notice on the 22nd March, except that he gave a general notice. He said the Olympia had arrived, and that was not special notice that these goods had arrived. On the 5th January Mr. Burke took this godown keeper to the Mutual Stores, and told him to point out the person to whom he gave notice and
#7
15
were in such a state as to be unsaleable. I accept that statement as good evidence, and I think the amount of damages sustained is the market price of the goods in Hongkong when the plaintiffs first sent in a claim to the defen. dante, and of which no notice at the time was taken. I have no hesitation in giving judgment for the plaintiff at the rate he claims.
CARMICHAEL AND CLARKE V. W. POWELL, LD.
The plaintiffs sued the defendants for 8500, being a fee for supplying a valuation of Messrs. More and Seimund's business. Mr. El J. Grist (of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist) appeared for
|
Thursday, 9th March.
IN BANKRUPTCY.
BEFORE SIR H. S. BERKELEY (CHIEF JUSTICE)
Warrants were issued for the arrest of the debtors in the following cases, in which the debtors failed to appear: -Loong Sing ex parte Pun Tak Hang; and Pang Hang Shek (Yan Shang) ex parte Cheung Yam Chun.
At the conclusion of the bankruptcy pro- ceedings, His Lordship said:-The last time I sat here, I held that solicitors were not entitled to take part in public examinations. I think I was right, but to uphold that view would to exclude solicitors from a voice in be this Court. I think, therefore, that mem- are entitled to speak for bers of the bar oreditors in the Court, Solicitors in this Colony have no right under the Ordinance to cross-examine at public examinations as is the case in England. In the Ordinances of this Colony there is no such provision; but it has evidently been supposed that they had a right. Therefore, I am willing to allow it. Solicitors will be allowed to take part in the proceedings I make this explanation in view of in future. what I said last time,
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION,
BEFORE HIS HONOUR MR, T. SYRCOMBN SMITH (PUISNE JUDGE).
THE HEP LOONG V. WEISMANN, LD.
This was a claim for $648 for biscuits sup- plied.
Mr. P. W. Goldring (of Mr. G. K. Í. Brutton's office) appeared for the plaintiff shop, and Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C, instructed by Mr. Almada e Castro) for the defendent company.
Mr. Goldring said:-In this action the plaintiff claims $648 due for 200 tins of biscuit supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant, altogether 10,800 lbs. of biscuits at $648. The