64
8-1
44
??
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY RÉSS AND
I was already filed a petition in this matter. not aware of it at the time, but if they do not propose to proceed with the case I don't see why I should not.
Mr. Gedge, who represented the creditors, stated that on a previous occasion judgment was given for the Opium Farmer against the debtor. On that occasion Messrs. Deacon, Looker and Deacon were acting for Tan Joo Chiu.
His Lordship-I don't see how there can be two petitions on the file for the same debtor.
Mr. Looker-I appear for the debtor on the first petition, My Lord, but cannot explain how my friend has been instructed.
He did not tell me
Mr. Barlow-I was originally instructed by a friend of the debtor's. The debtor is in gaol, and I went up to see him personally, and got instructions to issue & writ. anything about a preliminary bankruptcy, but asked me about the matter and I advised him to file a petition.
His Lordship-You did not know of the existence of these other people in the matter.
Mr. Barlow-No.
and in sub-section 2 (d) this form of execution is specially provided for:-Completion of execution in the case of an attachment of an ordinary debt means receipt of the money, that is, receipt of the money attached. The mere fact of obaining an order of attachment of a debt in the hands of a third party is not receiving the money"; for the money is in Court: it is attached until it is released by order of the Court. The attachment, as was explained in Batler v. Wearing (17 Q.B.D. at p. 185; citing Lushington C. J. in Exp. Pillers 17 Ch. D. 658), is a security: the payment out is therealization of the security. This case, therefore, falls within the express terms of the Ordinance. But the attaching creditor relies on a principle said to be laid down in Marriott v. Hampton, that money paid under compulsion of law cannot be recovered. The facts of that case were simply that a person having paid a bill lost the receipt. and being afterwards sued could not defend the action, as he had no other means of proving payment. Subsequently, however, he found the receipt and brought an action to recover the money. The principle which was laid down was that as he had paid the money under compulsion of law, he could not recover it back, becau • otherwise it would allow parties to try their causes again, although they were not properly prepared the first time with their evidence, The old cases which were cited do not, as it seems to me, carry the principle any further though they extend it to the assignees in bankruptcy of the party who has paid the money under compulsion of law. The principle for which Mr. Calthrop con- tended really is that money paid under compulsion of law cannot be recovered from him by another party entitled to it: for such a proposition there is no authority; and in this case the third party seeking to recover the money is a person whose right to do so depends on the Bankruptcy Ordinance. I am, therefore of opinion that the Official Receiver has made out his right to have the money paid The Official Receiver asked for an adjourn. to him for the benefit of the creditors.ment of this public examination as he was
Costs out of the estate.
awaiting the receipt of particulars of accounts from a firm in Shanghai.
Mr. Pollock-The general rule is that costs in an opposed motion shall follow the event, and I submit that inasmuch as certain creditors in this case have chosen to resist the motion, and have failed. they should pay the costs of action.
Mr. Looker-At present we are the solicitors on the first petition, and I am instructed to ask that the matter he allowed to stand over. I think both petitions had better be adjourned, and my friend can see the debtor again, and if he wants a change of solicitors I will drop out of it
Mr. Barlow-I take it that it is quite clear from the debtor's action that he has instructed
me.
His Lordship-No. It is not clear. Mr. Barlow If Messrs. Deacon, Looker and Deacon do not go on, I think I am entitled to go on with my petition.
His Lordship-I cannot hear two petitions from two different Solicitors in the same case. You had better arrange the matter some way.
The case was adjourned.
WAI LUNG SEK EXPARTE THE DEBTOR.
Mr. C. E. H. Beavis on behalf of the debtor, applied for an adjudication order.
His Lordship-Does the debtor want to escape the public examination?
Mr. Bearis-No, My Lord. The public His Lordship-Notice of the motion was examination is practically concluded, and was given as it was to the judge sitting in bank-only adjourned to enable the Official Receiver ruptcy, practically in chambers.
to obtain some information from Shanghai. Mr. Pollock-But notice was given them His Lordship-What information do you long ago that we were going to take this point. | want? Then the notice of motion was filed, and Mr. Wakeman-It is in connection with the the money was never actually paid over firm of Holliday and Wise. The debtor was to the Fak On. It would be unfair to formerly a compradore to their firm in Hong- mulet the general body of ereditors becausekong, and they have written stating that he one takes an action on his own.. Why should owes them over $39,000. I have not yet re- my learned friends get their costs out of theceived their account. estate they have been fighting against. It would be inequitable.
His Lordship-Under the circumstances I think the costs must be paid out of the estate, and make an order accordingly.
THE WA LUNG FIRM EXPARTE E. A. MIARER
Mr. Barlow-This matter was adjourned with the idea of a composition being entered into, and I would ask Your Lordship to let it stand over for another week.
Mr. Looker-I am instructed by the debtor, who desires to go into the premises with the object of taking stock, but the bailiff is in possession on behalf of the interim receiver. The debtor desires to enter with Messrs. Hughes and Hough, I believe to sell some of the goods with a view to arranging the composition.
Mr. Wakeman-I don't see how that can be done unless they give security.
Mr. Looker-Possibly the composition will be put through finally within three days.
His Lordship-Mention the matter to ma again before that time.
WONG HO TSUN EXPARTE THE DEBTOR.
This was anapplication for a receiving order. Mr. d'Almada Castro, who appeared for the debtor, stated that his (the debtor's) de- claration had been filed showing that his liabilities amounted to $17,323.
An order was made.
TAN JOO CHIU KIPARTE THE DEBTOK.
Mr. Barlow I appear for the debtor, Your Lerdship, but I understand another firm, Messrs. Deacon, Looker and Deacon, have
[August 7, 1906.
Mr. Wakeman-The debtor's statement of affairs is very unsatisfactory, and I would ask Your Lordship that he be ordered to Ble further accounts under section 16, which requires him to file au account of his business expenses for three years.
Botion
Mr. Looker-I appear for about 25 creditors. Your Lordship, and would like to ask the debtor one or two questions.
Have all the people out of the Colony to whom you sent goods paid you?-Some have and some have not.
Has any person in Macao to whom you have sent goods not paid you?—No, they have all paid.
You have put down in your statement of affairs that your book debts stand at $1,664. How much are they altogether?-$1,664 in Hongkong besides that amount there are some $5.000 outside the Colony.
In June last you sent goods out of the Colony for which you received the money, but you have not paid some of the people from whom you bought the goods -I have paid some others I have not.
Mr. Looker-I would ask Your Lordship to order this man to be kept in custody under section 24.
His Lordship-I think, perhaps, it would be fairer first to ask him to give more information.
Mr. Looker-Can you explain why yon ob- tained these goods on credit, sent then out of the Colony, got the money for them and did not pay the people you bought them from ?-- There were previous parsons from whom I hought, and I had to pay them.
The goods you bought from Hongkong creditors were for sale to other people ?- People in Macao told me to purchase them.
And the Macao people paid you for the goods, bat you never paid the people you bought them
from? That is so.
The money you received yon paid to other creditors here? Yes. Previous ones.
} Mr.
another: Hursthouse, representing creditor, also asked permission to question the debtor.
How long have you been trading ?-Seven
years.
How much capital did you bring into the firm?-Taels 7,000.
How much did your partner bring in ?- Taels 2,50 '.
Are you the sole and responsible owner of this shop Yes.
Did you guarantee payment to the Tak Cheung Hing for a firm called Yuen Shan ?...I don't remember exactly.
His Lordship granted a warrant for the arrest of the debtor, and the examination was adjourned.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION,
Mr. Beavis-I think the Official Receiver has got all the information he wants from the BEFORE MR. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE.) public examination.
Mr. Wakeman-I don't object to the order for adjudication, but must ask for an adjourn ment of the public examination.
His Lordship granted the order for adjudica. tion, and adjourned the public examination.
TSOI CHUN LI EXPARTE LO TAI CHOW. This was
an application for adjudication. Mr. C. F. Dixon, who appeared for the creditors, stated that on the 28th July the first meeting of creditors was held, and it was unanimously resolved adjudicated bankrupt. He had since absconded.
that the debtor be
Mr. Wakeman-I would ask Your Lordship to grant a warrant for the arrest of this man.
An order was made for adjudication, and a warrant is to issue for the arrest of the debtor.
in
YIK WING EXPARTE MA TAI NAM.
This debtor was publicly examined by the Official Receiver. He said-I am the master of the Fong Lan firm which carries on business tobacco refuse at 378 Queen's Road Central. Besides this shop I have another Lusiness at Wanchai. Li Chun Sam was my only partner. The statement of affairs I filed is correct, and I have no other property than that shown. Honey due by un- secured creditors amounts to 268,587. This money is owing for tobacco and hard. The amount owing me for book debts is $1,664. I was a sbareholder in the Yu Fung Loi shop, and had a $500 share.
MRS. A. BELL V, A. RUMJAHN. The plaintiff claimed from the defendant, the proprietor of Carlton House, a sum of $391. being damages for loss of jewellery from her room while staying at Carlton House.
Mr. C. E. H. Beavis (of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. H. J. Gedge (of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master) represented the defendant.
Mr. Beavis stated that the plaintiff sued the defendant for $391, being damages for jewellery lost in a room in defendant's hotel.
The Puisne Judge--Is the loss admitted Mr. Gedge-No.
Mrs. Bell was called. She said-On April 7th I went to Carlon House and left on July
24th.
On June 23rd I missed a number of
articles of jewellery and reported the loss to the manager of the hotel. The day after the loss a Chinaman came and repaired the lock on my door which was defective.
consider d the
In cross-examination—I jewellery of some value, and worth taking care of. I always left the silver box in which I kept it on my dressing table. My amah had I had a trunk in the room access to my room. which I could have locked up, but never thought of lecking my jewellery in it. Shortly before the loss my amah was taken ill, and got mes substitute. This woman was's stranger
to me.