.
50
and Mr. H. W. Looker (of Messrs. Deacon, Looker and Deacon) represented the defendants
Mr. Master stated that the plaintiff arrived in the Colony about the 16th September, 1903, and took over bis duties as chef at the Hongkong Hrtel. He continued to perform those duties to the best of his ability; and as far as he knew to the satisfaction of the directors, up to the actual date of his dismissal on the 1st June. The plaintiff brought the action within the summary jurisdiction of the court because he wished to avail himself as far as possible as to clause five of his agreement which stipulated that he should receive a second class passage home. About the 27th May, or a little earlier, some difficulty arose between the plaintiff and the hotel directors. Mr. Davies, acting manager of the hotel, bad a dispute with the plaintiff regarding som souse fish," the upshot of which was that the plaintiff was suspended and ultimately dismissed from the hotel's service.
cease
to
The defence was that in a further term of the plaintiff's agreement, notwithstanding anything therein before contained, the defendant company should have power to dismiss the plaintiff at any time if he should perform his duty to the satisfaction of the directors; but in the event of such dismissal the company should pay the plaintiff two calendar month's salary and a second class P. and 0. passage to England, provided such passage was availed of within one month after such dismissal. A further term of the said agreement stated that the principal duties of the plaintiff therenu der would be to attend the market daily (Sundays excepted) before 6 a.m. and select the best pro- curable provisions for the use of the defendant company's hotel. It was also part of the plain- tiff's duty to teach and supervise the Chinese cooks, pantrymen and other persons in the employ of the company, in the preparation and service of food. On the 1st June the directors, being dissatisfied with the manner in which the plain tiff was performing his duties, dismissed him, sending him a cheque for two months' salary and informing him that his second class passage to England would be provide l within one month from date. The defendants denied, as stated in the s'atement of claim, that the plaintiff had faithfully and diligently served the defendant company in accordance with the terms of his agreement.
Ernst Wohlfahrt. the plaintiff, deposed:- I am chef at the Hongkong Hotel. I first heard that they required a man through their agents in London. and entered into an agree. ment with them, in pursuance of which I came to Hongkong. I arrived on the 16th Septem- ber. 19 3, and my duties have never been com- plained of. When engaged, I #83 told I would receive a Christmas box of £50 r ceived such never year, but I have a present. Shortly aft r my engagement, I was told that the food was better. I watched the Chinese cooks to see that they served the dishes up properly, and did my best to assist the manager of the hotel. So far as I know Mr. Davies was always perfectly satisfied with
8
ma.
There is a direction book kept at the hotel, wherein complaints are written, and I have to sign it. On 6th April I received a letter from Mr. Davies in which it was stated that I was given a 10 per cent. bonus, and everything went smoothly until May, when a complaint was made to me by Mr. Osborne about the age of some carrots. This was the only personal complaint made to me at that time. On the 22nd May soused fish was again served and there was another complaint. I had seen to the fish myself, and am sure it was good On the 26th May Mr. Davies told me that his wife was going to make some soused fish, but I objected, as the boys would laugh at
if they saw ma
woman coming into the kitchen.
a When I returned from found some soused fish in the kitchen and asked Whose fish is that"? On being informed that Mrs. Daries got the fish I told one of the cooks to take it upstairs. Mr. Davies then came down, and after some words' said he suspend. d me. I replied. You can't do it. You have no right. Next day I received a letter from the directors, together with a cheque for 3:01 12. stating that they had suspend d me. I returned the cheque. At a meeting of the company I expressed my regret for using bad language towards the manager.
8
walk I
|
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
I
made
the did
was
to
the
(July 24, 1965.
IN BANKRUPTCY,
THE WAH LOONG EXPARTE KU ON BANK. Mr. Barlow asked that this matter be adjourned for a fortnight, as composition was being arranged. Adjournment granted.
P.
THE WAH LOONG EXPARTE E. A. MAIRER. This hearing was also adjourned on the application of Mr. W. Goldring. for a similar reason to that stated in the previous cas.
TSOI CHUNG LE? EXPARTE HO TUI CHAN. In this case Mr. C. F. Dixon (of Mr. J. Hastings' office) applied for a receiving order against the debtor's estate. The papers filed showed that an act of bankruptcy had been committed in that the debtor had absconded from the Colony with intent to defeat or delay his creditors. An affidavit had been filel in support of the petition, and the petitioning creditor was present to answer any questions.
I have been on the best terms with the rest of the hotel employees, and have always been willing to remain in the service of the company.
In cross-examination-When I was engaged, I would be Mr. Osborne did not te'l ma under the orders of the hotel manager, but he said the manag r was a very quiet man.
cooking and atte-ded
Complaints were everything that came in.
thit the coffee beans were not good, and Mr. Potts complained that the chops and steaks were not cut as thick as they used to be but when I said, Ya can save money by cutting them thinner, he did not object. When complaint was made about there nobing enough fat in coll corned beef, and I was requested to sex that some proper fat
put in middle of it, my No. 1 cook complied with the request by sticking in a lump of sust, with at my knowledge. I was not engaged to do what was done before, but to improve the hotel
Ho Tai Chan, declared, state-I am a cooking. On the 15th June I had left the hotel, so I never served up any fresh peaches as hard compradore employed by Messrs. P. Lemaire Mr. and Co, and the petitioning creditor in this as bullets. On one occasion I asked Osborne what he knew about carrots, and in bankruptcy. Before ins'itating these proceed. consequence was asked to step up to the Boardings I inquired for the debtor at his residence, 16 Wyndham Street. His concubine told me I understood Mr. Osborne to say I meeting. would get Christmas boxes from the boarders, that he had gone to Canton, anl I noticed that
his goods had all been removed. and it was said that I would get a lot of lips.
Re-examined-It was the comp adore's duty to buy the coffee. The complaints made were about trivial matters, and were only mentioned to me in the course of conversation. Mr. Haynes and myself were on the best of terms.
His Honour. That is what I was going to ask you. You are not on such good terms with Davies as you were with Haynes?
Plaintiff Only until very lately-until the 31,200,000. last day or so.
His Honour--1 here is always an rent in these things.
undercur.
After further witte ses had been examined, Mr. Looker opened the case for the defence, and His Honour then adjourned the hearing until Monday next.
Thursday, 20th July.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
(BEFORE SIR F. T. PIGGOTT, CHIEF JUSTICE.
LEUNG HING T.
PANG
AN THER.
CHIU NGO AND
The application for a receiving order was granted.
LAI HING FIRM EXPARTE MA LUNG PO.
The examination of Ma Fat Ting, managing partoer of the Lai Hing firm, goldsmiths and bankers, was continued. The money owing creditors for amounts deposited in the bank was $988.416, while the assets were stated to be
Mr. G. H. Wakemin, official receiver, opened the examination.
Was there any written arreement between the partners of the Wang Fang?—No.
No partnership-No.
Are you certain there wai no partnership agreement when the partnership was first formed ---No. There was not. There were only conditions drawn up.
Did you sign a copy of those conditions? - I did not.
Have you seen one?—I have. What were the conditions?—I forget most of them.
Your shore was worth $6,000 a year?—Yes. Is that provided for in the conditions ?—Yes. The man who subscribed $50,000 got $500 a month. I had between $60,000 and $7 1,00) in the firm.
You received, you say, $6,000 a year as wage. other monies did you Besi les that, what
it was divided.
Where did you get your money,from ?—I have been in Hongkong for 30 or 40 years, and had businesses of my own. I did not borrow it from any body.
The plaintiff, who is a timber dealer residing at 219 Des Voeux Road, claimed from the de-receive-Nothing. If any profit was made, fendants the sum of $11,718.33, being for alleged damages sustained through breach of coven nt for the quiet enjoyment of all that piece of land registered in the Land Office as Section C of Shamsuipo Lot No. 12, comprised in and shared by an Indenture of Assignment dated the 21th day of January, 1900, and mide between the defendants of the one part aud the plaintiff of the other part: also costs of action.
Mr. H. Calthrop, instructed by Mr. P. W Goldring (of Messrs. Bratton, Hett and Gold- ring) represented the plaintiff, and Mr. Harding watched the case on behalf of the first defendant
Mr. Calthrop stated that the plaintiff bought certain lant from the defendants in the New Territory for a sum of $7.932.54, which land was supposed to have an area of 31,376 square feet. The plaintiff assigned his interest in this land to a man named Wong Tang Sam. There was a bond entered into by the plain tiff's father in order to further scure the title, which was investigated ly the Land Court, and it turned out that it was only valid Thereupon an as to about 1,400 square feet. action was brought by Wong against Leung Po, the father of the plaintiff, and judgment Was ob'ained in the sum of $10,243, which was
a proportion of the purchase money with interest as to and costs. Then the question arose whether it was competest for the plaintiff to bring this action.
His Lordship maintained that as the mattr no course of action, and stood there was suggested an adjournment in order that the plaintiff might join with Leung Po to make the action competent.
The case was adjourned.
You are a partner in the Wang Fung ?—Yes. And your name is down on the list of partners. with the conditions -Yes.
The Official Receiver-What he calls conditions, my lord, is really a partnership agreement.
Hare you always received this $5,00). a year?-Yes.
When the Wang Fung was not paying, you rec ived it just the same?-According to the regulations it had to be paid, and if it was not whether there was a paid it was due to me profit or not.
。
Where did it come from?-Well, if there was no money to be paid, then it was a matter
Sometimes it was not paid. of accounts.
Was it paid last year?—No. before ?-
-Yes.
The year What did the other partners receive? -Some $1,000, some $500.
Do you know what was the total amount paid monthly to the partners?—I cannot say; several thons and dollars.
Several thousand dollars were paid out to the partners every month. Did this money bolong to other people?—I don't know.
When the Wang Fung was not paying the partners were drawing several thousand dollars à month -If there was no profit the Wang Fung would put the amount down to their credit.
Was there any agreement between the Tai Hing and the Wang Fung as to monies
S