!
November 18, 1905.]
There was a counter claim in this actiou. and in his statement the defendant said he deposited with the plaintiff the sum of 85,000 under the agreement of Uctober. 1903, and subject to the conditions therein. Since 23rd April he had been prohibited by the plain- tiff from acting, and ceased to act as shroff The defendant claimed the return to him of the sum of $5,000, together with interest at the rate of 7 per cent, per annum, from the 21st September.
In his defence to the counter claim the plain- tiff denied that the defendant paid out a sum of $21,400, as alleged, in respect of any cheque whatever; and in the alternative, if the said sum was paid out in respect of a cheque, such cheque was a forgery, and parported to have been drawn in a Chinese name which was nu- known either to the bank or in the Colony Moreover, the said cheque (if any) was neither duly chopped nor initialled for payment; there- fore the defendant was negligent in paying the same. The plaintiff denied that such a cheque was handed by the defondant to the second shroff, and stated that, when he requested the defendant at the end of the day's business to produce a voncher for the payment he was unable to produce any cheque. The defendant had signed a document at the request of the plaintiff in acknowledgment of his indebtedness to the plaintiff, but the terms were not dictated. With regard to the counter claim the plaintiff was willing that the sum of $5,000, together with interest, should be deducted from the amount due and owing.
Evidence was opened, and the case adjourned.
Wednesday, 15th November.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE Mr. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE).
A BROKER'S COMMISSION.
Chau Yung Shang, broker, sued Lai Sui Tung to recover the sum of $201 due for commission earned by him as a broker,
Mr. C. F. Dixon (of Mr. John Hastings office) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. O). D. Thomson represented the defendant.
!
Mr. Dixon related the circumstances under He said the plaintiff which the claim arose. was approached by a man named Mik Sing Tong, who told him he was the agent for the defendant, and had instructions to endeavour to
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
the mortgagee. Mr. Thomson then proceeded to quote cases showing that no claim could be upheld where the money had not been paid over unless there was an allegation of fraudulent delay or wilful neglect.
His Lordship-It is an understood condition in thes brokers' transactious that the title must be good. In this case the title was bad, and that is the point I want to hear you on,
: Mr. Thomson-But the $20,00 was not obtained unless it was actually handed over to the mortgagee.
obtain a loan of $2,000 on property at No. 142 Queen's Road Central. He asked the plaintiff
if he would obtain this money, and said that in the event of his fiuding it his brokerage would be at the rate of one per cent. In pursuance of this order the plaintiff at once approached a man named Chuk Yuk Tim, who agreed to advance the money provided the title of the property was in order. Plaintiff then went and saw the defendant, and told him that he had obtained the money. The deeds of the property were eventually taken to Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist, and when the title was examined the mortgagee was advised not to lend the money on the security, and the arrangements fell through.
His Lordship-Where is the commission? Mr. Dixon-It was not in consequence of any fault of the plaintiff that the title was wrong, and I submit that he is entitled to his commission.
Continuing, Mr. Dixon said that the plaintiff saw the defendant's agent, and asked about his commission. The agent told the plaintiff that defendant would not pay it, but said that he (the agent) would try to bring pressure to bear in the matter. Nothing had been done, however, consequently this action was brought.
Mr. Thomson-I submit there is no case,
His Lordship-Well, I can't see it at present. What are your arguments?
His Lordship-The money was ready. Mr Thomson- But not handed over.
His Lordship-That is not the point though. Mr. Thomson -There has been no wilful neglect on the part of the defendant, and he has derived NO benefit from the plaintiff's services.
Mr. Dixon la re quoted authorities regarding proper security.
His Lordship-That is the point. Proper security is said to have been given, but there is no titl
Mr. Dixon--In this case nothing has beeu said about title. What the mortgagee said was “I will lend the money if the title is alright." His Lordship-But the title was not alright. Mr. Dixou referred to another law report wherein it was laid down that the contract was complete when a person willing and able to advance the money had been secured.
His Lordship-The defendant said he was going to get the money if the title was good,
Mr. Dixon-I submit your Lordship must imply that the title is alright.
His Lordship-But it is not alright. Mr. Dixou-But that is not in consequence of any act of the plaintiff. He brought the mortgagee and the landlord iuto negotiations, and I submit that he is entitled to his commis- sion, no matter what reason is brought forward for the cancelling of the arrangement.
His Lordship-I will consider the point and let you know on Friday whether the case can go on or n·t.
TRANFIC IN STOWAWAYS,
Ng Mui Po, trader of 300 Queen's Road West, claimed from the Cheung Hing Kok, boarding house proprietors of 17 Center Stret, the sum of $154, money lent.
Mr. O. D Thomson appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Otto Kong Sing represented the defendants,
|
|
|
|
351
Mr. Kong Sing-Not unless it can be proved that it was put on by somebody in the firm.
His Lordship-If there is negligence on the part of the proprietors, then their chop is liable to be used. Do you mean to say that if seals are left about, nobody can go and use them?
Lo Chau Hing (snch is the name Lo Chau gave when placed in the witness box), testified to being chief stoker of the 8.8. Shawmut and receiving the $150 to look after the stowaways. Mr. Thomson asked for judgment against him.
His Lordship said the case revealed a big swindle, and if Mr. Thomson wished it he would allow him to amend the writ, and give judgment against Lo Chan and immediate execution. He would also write to the Captain Superintendent of Police about this shop, and point out that thay were doing a thriving trade in the shipping of stowaways.
Mr. Thomson-I submit that I ought to get judgment against the boarding house as well.
His Lordship-No, no. Your client is as bad as they are.
Mr. Thoms --If the firm are negligent enough to allow their chop to be used for the chopping of a receipt, surely they are responsible for their negligence!
His Lordship-What I am inclined to do is to tell the police about these people and give immediate execution against Lo Chau.
Mr. Thomson--On the document chopped by the Cheung Hing Kok I submit that I am entitled to judgment against the defendants.
His Lordship-There is no doubt that your client, as well, is mixed up in the affair,
Mr. Thomson-That might be so, but there is no evidence.
His Lordship-I will give you judgment against. Lo Chau, and immediate execution, but not against the firm.
Mr. Kong Sing-My Lord, I will ask for costs against the plaintiff.
His Lordship-No, no, you won't. His Lordship then, through the interpreter, imformed Lo Chau Hing that he had been added as second defendant, as, on his own admission, he had received the money. Unless be paid the account at once he would go to gaol.
The plaintiff was then called up, and a representative of the Cheung Hing Kok who was present.
His Lordship informed them that they had all been trafficking in stowaways, and that they should consider themselves lucky to be getting off so lightly.
Thursday, 16th November.
IN BANKRUPTCY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE SIR F. T. PIGGOTT (CHIEF
JUSTICE).
Mr. Thomson stated that on the 12th April one, Nam Ye Lung. who is now employed by the plaintiff, went to see the proprietor of the boarding house; formerly this man was a seaman, and had stayed at the The proprietor defendant boarding house. said a steamer was going away next day, and he was short of $100 odd. He asked Man Yu Lung to leud him the amount. Mau said he had not got it, but would ask his master, the plaintiff, to lend it. The plaintiff agreed to do se, and when the money was handed over a document was drawn up by his accountant and signed by RE CHOY CHUNG LI EXPARTE LO TAI CHAN. a man named Lo Chau. The plaintiff inquired
Mr. P. W. Goldring said he had been whether Lo Chau was master of the defendant instructed to move another motion for the shop, and was told that he was not. He release of this debtor. He wished to ascertain accompanied the man to the defendants, and exactly how long his Lordship intended that there Chi Pui Chi, master of the boarding house, he should be confined. He understood he was put the chop of his shop to the document.
only to be kept in gaol until yesterday evening. His Lordship The order made was that the creditors and Official Receiver should have till yesterday to submit their case to the advisors of the Crown, and take such steps as were necessary to consider whether they would prosecute. Then there was a further time allowed the creditors to consider as to their course of action:
were put on board.
For the defence Mr. Kong Sing stated that Man Yu Lung on a certain day paid a visit to Lo Chau, one of the proprietors of the defendant boarding house. At this time the s.s. Shomut happened to be in port, and some passengers Lo Chan was introduced by a man called Un Lung to the plaintiff. The passengers in question were put on board by the plaintiff, and he wanted a the ship to look after them. tiff did not let Lo Chau know at the time that they were stowaways, but gave arrived at Tacoma. In the meantime Lo him $150 to pay for their keep until they
man on
The plain
Chin who was head stoker on the steamer, found out that the supposed passengers were stowaways, and refused to repay the money to the plaintiff. At the time the amount was paid over, Lo Chau was a member of the seamen's boarding house, and the plaintiff asked him to
Mr. Bonner-I think there is a very strong case against the debtor, and the Crown Solicitor will probably take it up.
Mr. Goldring-I would ask your Lordship to adjourn the application so that I can bring it
until the Attorney General gives his decision, up from time to time.
His Lordship-I will adjourn the motion
and then reasonable time must be allowed the creditors to consider what action they will take.
Mr. Thomson-The mortgage was not obtain- ed. If a man comes along and says he will lend $20.000 and does not do it, he cannot claim brokerage. The defendant was willing to accept the amount, but it was not paid over, consequently he did not have the advantage put the chop of his shop on the receipt. Any BEFORE MR. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE).
of it.
His Lordship-But the title was not alright. Mr. Thomson-It was not to Mr. Beavis satisfaction, as he was the soliciter acting for
of the members of the shop could use the chop. But if they are going to do that sort of thing, His Lordship-Very convenient is it not? the manager must be liable.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.-
CLAIM FOR damages,
Ld., claimed from the Kwai Mow firm the sum The Chinese Printing and Publishing Co.,
: