November 18, 1905.)
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
835
Mr. Wakeman offered no objection, and the | defendant entered into a partnership for the
as laid down in section 458, that is accord. ↑ ing to the time at which the writ respec- | request was acceded to. tively reach the bailiff for execution. Priority, therefore, rests with the plaintiff in 355.
Another difficulty arises which may be serious. The memorial in action 353 does not cover all the properties which apparently belong to the defendants, as the memorial in 355 refers to “sub-sec. 2 of Section D of reclamation to Marins Lot. 18" So far as I can see there is nothing in the rules which requires the plaintiff to specify the properties which he wishes to attach. The rules and forms are general, and apply to all property moveable or immoveable belonging to the defendant within the jurisdiction. It seems to me, therefore, that the attachment created by the writ in 353 | need not be limited to the properties specified in the memorial, but applies to this other pro- perty and both writs to any other property belonging to the defendant not specified in them. This point was not argued before me. It is right, however, that I should express my opinion on it; but the parties may apply, if they find it necessary, for the judgment on this point to be varied.
Mr. Pollock asked for immediate execution but his Lordship did not consider that was necessary, indicating that he gave judgment respecting all property which was registered.
On the subject of costs, his Lordship also decided priority should rest with the plaintiffs in the second action.
LUNG CHUNG v. POON MAN HING,
Mr. Sharp, K.C., in presenting this case to the court stated that the plaintiff firm (for whom he appeared) were building contractors carrying on business at 156 Wellington Street, Victoria, while the defendant was a gentleman who usually resides at 1 Seymour Road, Victoria. The claim was for work done and material supplied under a written agreement made in Hongkong on 17th August, 1903, whereby plaintiff firm agreed to build 12 Chinese houses for $69,500. Plaintiffs had completed the houses, and on the con- tract a sum of $7,518.31 was now due. Defendant was beyond the jurisdiction of the court and it was believed that he was con- cealing himself in order to avoid these proceedings.
Mr. J. E. Orange, architect, spoke to the contract being made, and Tam Yak, managing partner of plaintiff firm, supported the opening statement of counsel.
Judgment was give for plaintiff, with a general attachment.
Tuesday, 7th November.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
|
WING ON EXPARTE TANG SHAN,
Mr. Goldring made application for a receiving order stating that the case had been adjourned from last week for further evidence. He now submitted an affidavit in which the firm wote that they had suspended payment.
The receiving order was made. APPLICATION FOR A DEBTOR'S DISCHARGE,
In the case of Choy Ching Li alias Tsoi Choi Chung exparte Lo Tui Chan, Mr. P. W. Goldring appeared on behalf of the debtor and applied for his discharge. in suport of this application he read a number of affidavits. Debtor's second concubine deposed that the debtor paid to her father 84,000 for her about six years ago. Out of that her father gave her $1,500 as pocket money with which she purchased the greater part of the furniture, us d to furnish the house in Gage Street. Subsequently she bought o'her furniture from time to time, spending in all about $1,000. She lived with debtor in Gage Street, in Hollywood Road and in Wyndham Street, where, learning that he was in difficulties, she had the furniture moved to a flat in Elgin Street during debtor's absence at Canton. She did it without his cognisance and she did not com. municate with him. While she lived in Wyndham Street she paid the rent through her amah. The rent collector's affidavit referred to receiving the rent from the amah, while the affidavits of coolies alluded to the removal of
the furniture.
Mr. Goldring-I submit that in spite of the affidavits filed by the petitioning creditor it is clearly established by these affidavits that the furniture belongs to the woman, and also that the furniture was moved not on the 27th June but on the 3rd July, when debtor was away. There is nothing before your Lordship to disprove that. I submit that there is evidence that the woman made a claim on the furniture.
Mr. Dixson-I submit that the evidence clearly suggests that the bankrupt has com- mitted an offence for which, if criminal pio. ceedings be taken, he will undoubtedly be punished. In the event of criminal proceedings being taken we shall be able to obtain more evidence than is before your Lordship i these affidavits. These affidavits do not in any way show that the furniture belonged to the second concubine.
His Lordship-The question is- Are these affidavits sufficient to warrant me to set aside the order I made last week? It is not clearly shown that this property belonged to the concu- bine. If I were to express a contrary opinion I should be held to be receiving definite evidence that it is the property of the concubine. That I do not. There are a certain number of statements put forward to show where the
BEFORE Mr. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE). property was, but these are not conclusive and
A WIDOW'S CLAIM.
Wong Cheung Shi sued Wong Hing Cheong for $1,000, basing her claim on the loss occasioned through defendant detaining and still keeping from her a partnership book in which were entries relating to her deceased husband's con- nection with the firm of which defendant' was manager. The business was carried on at 248 Des Voeux Road. Before her husband, who was a dealer in books, died he appointed her as his executrix, but when she applied to the defendant for the partnership book he said he wanted to look at it and promised to send it to her later; and repeated pplication was made for its return without avail.
Mr. W. J. Daniels appeared for plaintiff and Mr. D. V. Steavenson for defendant.
After hearing evidence, his Lordship gave judgment for defendant with costs.
Wednesday, 8th November.
IN BANKRUPtcy JurisdicTION.
BaгOK SIR F. T. PIGGOTT (CHIEF
JUSTICE).
CHAN TING PO HIParte chaN TANG..
Mr. Dizon, who appeared for the petitiouing creditor, asked that the case stand over till next week, when he would apply for the rescission of the receiving order.
not altogether satisfactory, more especially with regard to the claim of the concubine. I think the order must stand. That order was made on
the 2nd November, and I don't see any necessity for varying it. The evidence must be supplied to the Crown in ten days, and it is for the Crown authorities to decide what is the value of that evidence.
Mr. Dixon Does your Lordship feel dis- posed to grant an extension of the time to lay the facts before the Crown Solicitor? To-morrow is a general holiday. The ten days end next Monday.
Mr. Bonnar-There are two Sundays, and a general holiday within the ten days.
His Lordship-I can not give you much more. Mr. Goldring-I submit there is nothing before the Court except an affidavit which I have proved to be untrue. I think your Lord- ship should limit the time.
performance of a certain work, the plaintiff contributing $77.9) as capital and the defendant putting in labour and material. Eventually the work was completed, and its total value was found to be $418. The defendant then went to plaintiff, who was entitled to have that sum divided between the defendant and himself, and giving him a statement, said—“ Will you go and instruct a solicitor to write for this money ?" That same evening defendant came and asked him to wait, as he had arranged for payment, producing a promissory note from the party for whom the work was done promising to pay within a week. At the end of that time plaintiff applied to the defendant for the money, when the latter replied-"Yes, I have had the money. I have spent it. I will pay you in a few days." De- fendant put off plaintiff from time to time, compelling plaintiff to take this action.
His Lordship-I shall give to next Wednes- day. That is two days. I can't give you more than that.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
A PARTNERSHIP.
Mr. Beavis pointed out that defendant had · prevented plaintiff from recovering the money as the shop in question was now closed.
After hearing the parties, his Lordship suggested that the action be withdrawn; a suggestion which was acted upon by both parties
THE AU TAU MURDER.
Lo Kun Mui, Lo Fat Hing and Lo Sze Mui November 6th with wilfully murdering Lo were charged at Hongkong Police Court on
San Kin, at Au Tau, in the New Territory, on the 28th September.
Sergeant Willis stated that the first defendant struck deceased with a bamboo pole several times and knocked him down. When he fell to the ground the same defendant picked up a large stone and struck him on the head with it. He then got his brother, the second defendant, to assist in burying the Lody. While they were digging the grave, by night, the woman lighted their work with a candle.
Dr. Hunter deposed to examining the body of deceased on the 18th October. Chinese- constable Fung Lung identified it inwitness's pres-nce as Lo San Kiu. The deceased died from a multiple of injuries received, and the pole produced could have caused such injuries.
Li Ti said the first defendant was her great uncle, the second her father, and the third her mother. The deceased and first and second defendants were brothers. On the 28th Sept. the first defendant after exhuming a body returned to the house about five o'clock in the afternoon. An hour afterwards it was meal time, and the first defendant was absent. She called out-"Where is my first great uncle! Call him to take his meal." Then decessed abused her and said he did not like her to call the first defendant to take his meals. Deceased further said "Take a measure of rice and an egg and go out and call his soul back, The third defendant then addressed decensed saying-
you needn't have scolded her. If I go to She only asked your brother to have a meal; Singapore my children will be treated worse than dogs.
Deceased told my mother she could go if she liked, after which he struck me and dragged my mother to the ground. He then picked up the cane pole produced and struck my mother with it. By this time the first defendant had returned, and he separated the deceased and my mother. Deceased then struck the first defendant twice with a pole before the first defendant snatched it from him and struck deceased with it about ten times. Deceased was knocked down and the first defendant then picked up a big stone which he threw at him. Shortly afterwards the deceased
died.
I then went to sleep, so I know nothing about the burial operations.
After hearing further evidence, his Worship committed the defendants for trial at the next Criminal Sessions.
Before Mr. A. G. W188 (PUISNE JUDGE.) included 13 armoured vessels, 15 ornisers, The Japanese fleet at the recent review
10 dispatch-boats, gunboats, etc., 8 converted of torpedo-boats, a flotilla of submarines cruisers, 26 destroyers 8 large number and 9 prises, including the armoured vessels Peresviet, Poltava, Nicholai I, Aprazine
Ho Sui Kai sued Ho Kai for $122, being money subscribed to a partnership and profit due to plaintiff. Mr. Beavis appeared for plaintiff and Mr. Master for the defendant, who raised a cross action. It appears that plaintiff and
and Seniavine.