August 21 1905.]
Debtor-No. On the 6th June I found I was unable to pay my debts, so told my foki not to put my chop to guarantees.
His Lordship-Did the foki have a general authority?
Debtor-Yes, in connection particular shop.
with this
Did know the goods bad been guaranteed
you by him?-Two,days afterwards he told me.
Did you take any part in the affairs of your shop? Yes, I managed the business.
Did you know what was being done-In matters of no importance my foki did not tell
me.
But you knew that goods were being bought and sold by your shop?--Yes.
On the 7th June your shop bought from the Mau Fuk Cheong, Chinese tobacco to the value of $131.85 I don't know.
During the month of May you received sums of money from Macao for goods you had sent there?-Yes, and I paid the money to different shops.
Not the shops who sold the goods in respect of which the Macao people paid the money-
Some of them.
How did you propose to pay the people whom you did not pay?—I was relying on the money from Cheong Chung Lan.
During the month of May you told us you had no ready money in the shop?—I had $1,000. Some of the goods you bought in May and June were bought from shops you had never had dealings with before, were they not?-Yes.
His Lordship next questioned the debtor. With regard to the business which you did for merchants in Macao. did you charge com. mission No.
What profit did you make -They were friends, My Lord, and I made nothing out of the transactions.
What profit did you make out of your business-Sometimes $2,000 to $3,000 a year.
Where did the profit come from-On the sale of tobacco.
Did you use the money Macao merchants sent
When I was pressed for payment. you
Was the $10,000 which you lent to Cheong Chung Lan in January part of the Macao money-No. That was my own.
Was the deposit of $8,000 which Cheong Chung Lan made on the houses he was going to buy forfeited-Yes.
Did you take any steps to recover the money from Cheong Chung Lau -No.
The Official Receiver questions debtor. Did you buy house No. 378 Queen's Road Central in January of this year for $22,000?-- Yes.
Where did you get the money from? Part of it was my own, and part I borrowed from different banks here and in Cantou.
Did you mortgage this house-Yes; on the first mortgage I raised $18,000; on the second. $6,000; and on the third, $3,000.
Did
you give the banks, from which you say you borrowed the money, any security-None except promissory notes.
What became of the $18,000 raised by the first mortgage-I lent to Cheong Chung Lan the sum of $10,000, and the balance I paid for goods.
You paid this $10,000 after he paid the deposit money on the house-Yes, he told me he was going to put through the transaction, so I lent him $10,000.
Was a proper agreement of sale drawn up by a solicitor ?—Yes.
Mr. Looker asked His Lordship to make au order under section 81 for the prosecution of the debtor.
His Lordship-I will not grant an order to-day as the matter requires some consideration.
Mr. Beavis then applied for the debtor's release, but this His Lordship refused owing to the complications of the case.
RE THE WA LUNG FIRM.
Mr. Barlow-I appear for fifteen creditors, My Lord. The scheme of composition has been signed by the creditors and the first payment made. I now wish to withdraw the petition. Mr. Hett, who appears on the second petition thought that both petitions ought to be held
over.
The Official Receiver is prepared to withdraw if both petitions are withdrawn.
His Lordship-I would not withdraw one petition unless the other was also withdrawn.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
Mr. Barlow-I propose that the matter stand over sine die
His Lordship-I don't like business standing over sine die. I should have thought it was a case for withdrawal on the face of it.
The case was adjourned for a fortnight.
WAI YUEN FIRM EN ARTE THE DEBTOR.
Mr. Dixon-This is an application for an order that the sum of $3,000 deposited in Court as security for the attendance of Kwok Kwai Pak, one of the partners of the above named debtor firm, at all meetings of his creditors, be At the public examina. returned to my client. tion of the two partners their answers were not were ordered to be satisfactory and they detained in custody. Eventually an order was made on the 15th April by the acting Chief Justice for the discharge of the debtors.
His Lordship-What is the state of the bankruptcy now?
Mr. Dixon-An adjudicatiou order was made, and I understand that so far as Kwok Kwai Pak is concerned the Official Receiver has no more questions to ask in the public examina- tion, and that application will be made for it
to be closed.
Mr. Wakemau-I have no objection to the return of this security. Kwok Kwai Pak has delivered up all his property, and his conduct has been satisfactory.
His Lordship made an order for the return of the security, and the closing of the examina- tion so far as Kwok Kwai Pak was concerned.
CHAN LEUNG CHUN EXPARTE CHAN KAI CHIU.
on
This was an application by Mr. Dixon under Section 2 of the Bankrupter Ordinance for the adjudication order to be annulled the grounds that all the debts had been paid in full. or securel to the satisfaction of the curt In support of the application affidavits had been filed by four of the creditors. the only ones of which they were aware in the colony. Mr. Barlow appearing for another creditor came forward at the last moment to oppose the application, but Mr. Dixon asked His Lordship to make the order provided the amount owing was paid to Mr. Barlow's client.
His Lordsbip--You had much better make a further application when this has been done.
Mr. Dixon-The debtor is in custody in Can- ton, and we want to have him released as soon as possible.
Mr. R. A. Harding-I represent three of the largest creditors. Your Lordship. and in the course of the proceedings the debtor went to Canton. My clients followed, and succeeded in getting him arrested. As the result of that arrest some $4,000 was deposited in the hands of the British Consul General, and part of our settlement claim is that we are to receive that amount
Mr. Wakeman-I do not think there will ba any difficulty about that. as I have been in communication with the Consul, and think he will hand the money over.
His Lordsbip grauted an order, which is not He to be drawn up until Mr. Barlow consents. further stated that Mr. Harding was entitled to receive such sums up to 8,000 as might be transmitted to Hongkong by the Consul-General at Canton.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
TUEN HANG KIN AND J. P. MADAR P. LI SHEK PANG.
His Lordship delivered judgment in this action wherein the plaintiffs claimed-(a) an injunction to restrain the defendant.his servants, workmen and other agents, from trespassing on the plaintiffs' properly at No. 86 Swatow Lane, and from digging up, or continuing to dig up the ground of the said premises or otherwise endeavoning to connect drainage of the defendant's premises, Nos. 1 to 17 Amoy Lane, with that of plaintiffs' premises Nos. to 18 Swatow Lane (b) the sum of $1,000 as damages for such trespass and digging as aforesaid.
Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C., instructed by Mr. H. W. Looker (of Messrs. Deacon, Looker and Deacon) represented the plaintiffs, and Mr. H. G. Calthrop, instructed by Mr. E. A. Bouner (of Messrs. Dennys and Bowley) appeared for the defendant.
115
His Lordship found that defendant was not justified in his trespass, and for such trespass a substantial, but not excessive damage should be awarded. He thought $8250 would meet the justice of the case. As to the injunction claim he did not think, when the case was first men- tioned, that it was a case for an injunction, and after hearing the facts that view was confirmed. He thought, therefore, that the plaintiffs nust have costs of suit, but that each party should pay its own cost of such proceedings as resulted from the claim of injunction.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE ME. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE).
LAU YUNG v. CHUN SHUN KOO.
The plaintiff, a chair coolie fin the employ of Dr. Justi, claimed from the defendant the sum of $100 on account of damages sustained by a window shutter from a shop owned by the defendant falling on him on the 25th May last.
Mr. R. F. C. Master (of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Holborow (of Messrs. Deacon, Looker and Deacon) represented the defendant.
Mr. Master-In this action, My Lord, the injury was caused the plaintiff by reason of & shutter falling on him from the house, 14 Queen's Road Central, at the corner of Zetland Street. The plaintiff is one of Dr. Justi's chair coolies, and on the 25th May last, after bringing the doctor to his office before ten o'clock in the morning, he sat down at the corner of Zetland Street to wait as usual. While sitting down, a shutter from No. 14 fell on his head and caused such injury that Dr. Justi did not expect him to recover, as he eventually did.
Mr. Holborow admitted the damage, but stat-d that his defence was that the defendant was the owner, not the occupier.
His Honour-Then it is a pure question of law?
Mr. Holborow-It is a question of law, but I also will prove that the coolie was sitting on the coping going round the house, on which he had no right to sit.
His Honour--Then we must go on. Various defences are being set up, so it is not a question of pure law. I expect what it will come to is the question as to whether the landlord is liable for a defect in the house.
After furthed argument His Honour held that the occupier, not the landlord, was liable, and dismissed the case.
Friday, 18th August.
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE SIR F. T. PIGGOTT (CHIEF JUSTICE).
WILFUL MURDER.
Chenug Fat was charged with feloniously, wilfully and with malice aforethought, killing and muidering Shek Kau at Shankiwan on the 24th June.
Sir H. S. Berkeley, K.C., Attorney (feneral, instructed by Mr. G. E. Morrell (of the Crown Solicitor's office) prosecuted, and Mr. H. G. Calthrop, instructed by Mr. P. W. Goldring (of Messrs. Brutton, Hett and Goldring, appeared for the accused.
Prisoner pleaded not guilty to the charge, and the following were empanelled as a jury: A. Schmid born (foreman), W. H. Watson, C. M. Williams, W. J. Battey, A. Weill, A. L. McColl and J. Fisher.
The Attorney-General-Way it please Your Lordship and gentlemen of the jury, the prisoner stands charged with the murder of a girl named Shek Kau on the 20th June last. The murder is stated to have taken place somewhere on the waters of the harbour off Saiwan. The facts
as they will be exposed to you by witnesses will be shortly as follows:-The dead girl's parents own a house- boat at Shaukiwan; they also bad a passenger boat which the dead girl used to ply for hire. The prisoner was well known to the family, and had used the dead girl's boat on two or three occasions. The mother of the girl will tell you that on the 7th January of this year the prisoner came to her boat to see the girl, and asked on that occasion that the girl might come