|
404
SUPREME COURT.
Friday, 1st December.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE ME. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE.
AN EMPLOYEE'S CLAIM.
8. D. Hickis sued the Robinson Piano Com- pany to recover the sum of 8911.31, being as to $825, three months' salary in lieu of notice of dismissal, and as to $86.31, arrears of salary for the month of October.
Mr. C. F. Dixon (of Mr. John Hastings' office) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. C. E. H. Beavis (of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist) for the defendant..
The case was adjourned for pleadings.
Saturday, 2nd December.
In Original JURISDICTION,
BEFORE SIR F. T. PIGGOTT (CHIEF JUSTICE).
AN IMPROPER ACTION.
On taking his seat in Court his Lordship
said there was a matter which he wished to
make public mention of before proceeding with the business of the Court, He said he had received a letter from one of the parties, or more properly a person professing to be interested, in an action in which he had recently delivered judgment. The letter com- plained in the first instance that the writer had been unable to obtain a copy of that judgment; but that, of course, was due to the way in which law reports were published in the Colony, which was well known to the public and the profession. But, as they no doubt knew, he was completing arrangements for a verbatim report of all judgments delivered; this arrangement would start with the New Year. The writer of the letter proceeded to criticise his judgment, but of that he would say nothing further than that such action was improper, and he would hand the latter to the counsel engaged in the case referred to, who no doubt would make proper representations.
WRIT OF ATTACHMENT GRANTED.
An application was made by Messrs. Leigh and Orange for a writ of foreign attachment against certain properties of Chan Fung Shan's.
Mr. M. W. Slade, instructed by Mr. F. B. L. Bowley, made the application on behalf of the plaintiffs. He said the plaintiffs sought the attachment in satisfaction of a claim for $11,586.25, for work done, conîmi siou earned, and money paid on behalf of the defendant. Search had been made and inquiries instituted regarding the whereabouts of the defendant, and it was believed he was out of the colouy.
After hearing the evidence his Lordship granted the application.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
Monday, 4th December.
BEFORE SIR FRANCIS PIGGOTT (CHIEF JUSTICE).
P
APPLICATION FOR AN INJUNCTI N.
The North British Rubber Co., Ltd., Ediu. burgh, sought an injunction to restrain Messrs. Jorge and Co. from infringing the trade mark applied to indiarubber shoes manufactured by the plaintiff company. The application was for (1) an injunction to restrain the defendants, their servants and agents, from infringing the plaintiffs' trade marks and from passing off goods not of the plaintiffs' manufacture as and for goods manufactured by the plaintiffs; (2) an account or damages; (3) delivery up of the marked goods; and (4) fur.her and other relief; and (5 costs.
Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C., (instracted by Mr. C. D. Wilkinson) of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist, appeared for the plaintiffs, whose registered office is at Castle Mills, Edinburgh, Scotland. He explained that the action was brought for an injunction to restrain the defendant company from infringing a trademark applied to indiarubber shoes, which mark was long ago registered in England as a
!
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
trademark of the plaintiff company and also by their agents, Messrs. W. G. Humphreys and Co., in Hongkong. The infringement complained of was the sale by d-fendants of indiarubber shoes bearing on them a lion rampant similar in, appearance to the lion rampant trademark registered by the plaintiff company, and applied by them to the indiarubber shoes they manu-
factured.
In reply to his Lordship, Mr. Pollock stated that there had been an action against the Godown Company in October when an interim injuction was granted. Proceeding, he said there were two motions-the one against Messrs. Jorge and Co. and the other for judgment. The first motion was supported by affidavits-o e filed by Mr. Jorge and the second by Mr. W. G. Humphreys. Mr. Jorge stated that he was willing that au injunction should be granted. Mr. Jorge, who had obtained independent advice, added that he was not aware that the mark upon the shoes in question was an infringe. ment of the trademark of the plaintiffs. Mr. Humphreys, in his affidavit, said his firm were the sole agents in Hongkong of the plaintiffs, whose shoes had obtained a considerable reputa- tion among the Chinese in South China. The defe dants were selling shoes bearing a device similar to plaintiffs' trademark, which was cal culted to deceive purchasers. In conclusion, har lly on defendants, provided they placed Mr. Pollock said they did not wish to press maks on the goods so that purchasers would not think they were buying shoes manufactured by the plaintiff firm.
His Lordship gave judgment for plaintiffs in terms of the writ, the damages to be assessed at a subsequent inquiry by the Registrar.
In the second action, the same plaintiff's against the Hongkong and Kowloon Wharf and Godown Co, Ld.. Mr. Polloc; asked for relief of the terms endorsed on the writ of summons.
On 23rd October an injunction was obtained against the defendant company to restrain them from parting with 15 cases of indiarubber shoes tiffs now wished the shoes to be delivered to which infringed plaintiffs' trade mark. Plain them, and he wished the injunction to he modified accordingly.
His Lordship consented, and judgment was entered for plaintiffs in terms of the amended
motion.
ADMITTED TO PRACTICE.
On the motion of Mr. H. E. Pollock that Mr. John Henry Gardiner be approved, admitted and enrolled as a solicitor in that Court, his
Lordship said the gentleman's papers were in order and the Court wished him overy success in his profession.
Wednesday, 6th November.
IN APELLATE JURISDICTION.
BEFORE SIR FRANCIS PIGGOTT (CHIFF JUSTICE, and Mr. A. G. WISE (POISNE JUDGE).
TAM MAN SAM P. TAM YAU AND CHEUNG
SAN PANG.
This was a notice of motion to vary an order made in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction on November 4th. Mr. M. W. Slade (instructed by Mr. Steaveuson) appeared for the appellants and Mr. 11. E. Pollock, K.C. (instructed by Mr. C. E. H. Beavis) appeared for the respondents.
Mr. Slade stated that the application was to vary or discharge au order of that honourable Court made in that action on 4th November so far as regarded that portion thereof staying execution against plaintiff in this action in respect of the costs and the hearing thereof in the Summary Jurisdiction of that honourable Court.
Mr. Pollock took a preliminary objection that the appeal was not ia time, having been lodged after the usual ten days after the order
.was made.
The objection was overruled.
Mr. Slade then explained the case for appel- lants, and argued that the order to stay as to those costs should not have been made unless respondents' solicitors refused to give an un- dertaking to repay them.
The Chief Justice-Assuming that we made an order to stay execution against you, you say we should not have made that order?
|
|
[December 11, 1905 :
Mr. Blade-Yes, my clients were to receive the costs. We were successful in the court below, and have an order for costs. Your order is that we are precluded from recovering those costs. I submit that the order should not have been made, and secondly, having been made it should not have been enforced unless we refused; to give an undertaking to pay.
Mr. Pollock contended that an appeal should not amount to a stay of execution.
Legal debate followed.
The Court reserved judgment.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE SIE F. T. PIGGOTT (CHIEF JUSTICE).
ALTERATION OF ARTICLES.
A petition was presented to the Court by the Union Insurance Society of Canton, Limited, to confirm a special resolution of the society providing for the alteration of the provisions of the memorandum of association of the Society. Mr. Sharp, K.C., and Mr. Pollook, K.Q., (instructed by Mr. F. V. Deacon) appeared in support of the application.
Mr. Sharp said the petition was to confirm a special resolution of the Society to enlarge its objects as they were stated in the memorandum of association. Te application was made unde his Lordship had directed, the petition had been section 14 of the Companies' Ordinance, and ast
advertised in the daily papers and in the Gazette. This resolution was passed and confirmed practically unanimously by the Society at the nec sary general meetings in November last, and his Lordship would see that there were substantially three provisions in the resolution. The first was a provision for partnerships or arrangements for a union of
with
interest
carrying on similar businesses. The second was persons or other companies
a provision for acquiring shares in other similar businesses. companies carrying on
The third was a provision for a general power of investment of the surplus funds of the society, article 12 of the Companies Ordinance. Those which was already adequately provided for by
alterations would enable the company to generally carry on its business more economically and efficiently, particularly by means of certain arrangements it was prepared to enter into with the China Traders Co., Ld. This would mean that the business would be conducted by опе staff instead of two, much of the cost of re-insurance would be saved, and the energy presently directed to competing with each other would be applied to a common end. Between the two companies there would be co-operation instead of competi- tion. They submitted that that alteration at least, so far as the arrangement with the China Traders Company was concerned, was shown by affidavits to be beneficial to the society. The financial position of both was excellent. The Society had a paid up capital of a million; its surplus, apart from uncalled capital, was over eight and a half millions; and its surplus including uncalled capital was over 10 millions, while the market value of the shares at $100 paid up was about $750 to-day. He might add that since the proposed arrange- ment was announced the price of shares in both had risen. During the last 15 years the ratio of loss, the policy holders claims to premia, had been on the average about 60 per cent. or under. The Chipa Traders Company had a paid up capital of 860 1,000; the surplus, apart from uncalled capital, was $2,300,000, and the surplus including uncalled oapital was over $3,700,0 0; while the market value of the shares on which $25 had been paid was about $90. Simil rly for the last 15 years the ratio between the premia and claims had been very much the same as indicated with regard to the Society. Never once had the losses trenched on the ample reserve. Every year the claims could be met on the premia alone. The interests of policy holders were amply secured by the enormous reserve of those two companies, and though they had had ample notice not a single policy holder had come forward to object.
The Chief Justice-Has the amalgamation been specially mentioned?
Mr. Sharp-It is widely known in the business world. Besides, the meetings have been fully reported in the press, Proceeding he referred to his Lordship's objection in
i