142
Mr. O. D. Thomson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. F. P. Hett (of Messrs. Bration, Hett and Goldring) represented the defendant.
it
Mr. Thomson stated that the question in the case was whether there was rea- sonable
cause for the prosecution which had been taken; the defendant admitted instituting the charge, but alleged there was reasonable cause. The facts of the case were that the plaintiff, the defendant and two other men were partners in the Yu Oa firm of contractors. The plaintiff was the largest shareholder, having a $500 share, while the other partners had $100 shares. The plaintiff, as managing partner of the firm, entered into a contract with one. Lam Woo, to do some work for him in connection with torpedoes at Lyemun. The contract was a written one, and it was therein agreed that the plaintiff should pay Lam Woo $3,000. The contract was duly Bigned and $2,500 paid, the balance heing paid on the following day. In the course of that day Lam Woo sent for the plaintiff and informed him that the War Authorities would not allow him to do the work contracted for, and suggest ed that the contract should be cancelled. This was eventually agreed to, al was agreed that Lam Woo should retain $100 to cover expenses, the other 82,60) which had been paid to him being returned to the plantin Defendant was informed of this, and the plain. tiff returned him through one of the other partners the sum of $1,250, the balance being deducted for expensos. The defendant at that time rather strongly objected to not getting the whole of the monoy, and suggested that n contract had been entered into between Lam Woo and the Yu On firm. Nothing was then done until November 19th, when the plaintiff was proceeded against at the Police Court and acquitted. On the faots stated Mr. Thomson submitted that there was an absence of reason. able and proper cause for the defendant to take proceedings. He was apprised of the contract with Lam Woo, and it was perfectly optional for him to ask Lam Woo about it, and whether the plaintiff's was a trumped-up story. The real reason the defendant took proceedings was to attempt to force the plaintiff to return the money which he thought was due to him; it was not a bona fide attempt on the part of the defendant to bring the plaintiff to justice,
After hearing the evidence of the plaintiff, which his Lordship considered very contradic. tory, he said he could not make out why the Polios Magistrate did not keep him. A jury at home would at this stage say they had had enough of it.
Mr. Thomson-If your Lordship takes that view of the case, I don't see that there is any good in going on.
His Lordship-No; the plaintiff contradicts himself in every statement. There will be judgment and costs for the defendant.
|
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
Company he found that three packages, con- taining $380, were missing. Of the $19,000 he placed $6,000 in his own safe.
His Lordship-Very well; there is $6,380 represented. Where is the balance ?
Defendant-I had three other packages placed underneath the table in the compradore's department.
His Lordship-How much money had board altogether?
Defendant-Over $10,000.
yon on
[February 24, 1906, *-* *-
IN BANKRUPTOY.
APPLICATION FOR ADJUDICATION.
Re Hong Lok Hing Tai ex parte the debt, a
Mr. H. Hursthouse (of Messrs. Dennys and Bowley), who appeared for the debtors, applied for an adjudication order, and that the Omcial Fistin Receiver be appointed trustee, The first meeting of creditors had been held, and at that ~,HI meeting the creditors decided to pass noisy
been filed.
His Lordship-Very well; tell us where it resolution, and an affidavit to the erect had came from. Who were the consignees ?
Defendant-Kwong Man-tai and Kwong
Sun-tai.
His Lordship-How much are you missing altogether?
་
Defendant-Only $380.
His Lordship-What became of the other packages you say were in the box which you lost the amount?
over to the |
Hi Lordship-I can see the man speak ng tue trat he knows it too. Call up is not the p' intiff.
Defendant-I hauded them
compray.
On the plaintiff being called, his Lordship askel -Do you know of anyone else losing mon in this show ?
Pintiff I know nothing about it. His Lordship-How many others are suing im or going to suo him? Plaintiff-No one else. His Lordship-If he took $380, why shouldn't he take the whole lot.
It is not my iness, but the police might think about it. There will be judgment and costs or the plain- fi4, with leave to issue imm diate execution.
Thursday, February ud.
IN ADMIRALAY JURISDICION
BEFORE SIR FRANCIS: Piggott (Cher JUSTICE).
SAM HING г. 8.8. PAUL BEAU,
The plaintiffs, coal merchants of 28 sud 30. Pottinger Street, sued the 88. Paul Beau to recover the sum of $5,390.60 die for coal supplied on the credit of the said steamship.
Mr. M. W. Slade, iustruoted by Mr. C. D. Wilkinson (of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist), appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C., instructed by Mr. 1. J. D. Stephens, represented the defendants.
In delivering his reserved judgment, bis Lordship said that necessaries in the shape of coal were supplied to the Paul Beau, a Freuch steamer lying in this port. The order for coal was given to plaintiff by one, Kwok Yik- ting; he said the coal was for the ship, and no questions were asked as to who were her owners. Subsequently, the ship being within the jurisdiction of the court, proceedings in rem were instituted for necessaries, the vessel being seized and bail given. The coal was ordered by Kwok Yik-ting as agent for the charterers, although the plaintiff did not know of this until some time afterwards. The bill was originally made out to the captain and owners BEFORE ME. A. G. Wise (PUISHE JUDGE), of the steamer, but seemed subsequently to
Wednesday, February 21st
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
A STRANGE DISAPPEARANCE,
The Wo Shun Steamboat Co., Ltd., sued Leung Tim to recover $380, money received by the defendant on behalf of the plaintiffs. ** Mr. R. Harding (of Messrs. Lwens, Harston and Harding) appeared for the plaintiffs, the defendant being unrepresented.
Defendant, on being called before the Court, said he was the compradors of the 8.8. Chan On, On January 18th of this year he left Foochow for Hongkong, having in his possession over $10,000.
His Lordship-Tell him if he owes the money he is only increasing costs by coming here to-day.
Defendant said the money was taken from him by somebody else.
His Lordship (to the interpreter)-Put him in the box and swear him.
Declared, defendant said he owed the amount claimed. He had fourteen packages of money belonging to the Steamboat Company, which he put in a box in his cabin on board the Chan On; the box had no look. Next morning, when he went to get the money to hand over to the
|
A QUESTION OF PROCÉDURE.
Re the Hau Fuk Cheung firm ex parte the Hung Yuen Bank.
t
Mr. C. F. Dixon (of Mr. John "Hastings" office) continned his application for payment of taxed costs of the San Tik Chuen firm. · Hả said the application was made under section 33, sub-section 2 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance, and was previously adjourned in order that the Official Receiver might file a report as to the bankruptcy. Mr. Wakeman had done so, being that he (Mr. Dixon) instead of issuing and opposed this application, his contention
made the firm bankrupt. the present proceedings should have at once
His Lordship-Who are the creditors who made them bankrupt?
Mr. Dixon-The Hung Yuen bank.
His Lordship-When was this action begun P Mr. Dixon-On October 25th, and I at- fached the property on the same day. The Official Receiver says that instead of instituting my writ I should have taken bankruptcy proceedings.
Mr. Wakeman-That is so, my Lord; as the mauaging partner of the firm absconded from the Colony.
Mr. Dixon-The fact of the managing part- ner absconding from the Colony is not evidence that the firm had committed such an act of bankruptcy as would entitle me to file s bankruptcy petition against them.
His Lordship-That raises the question I referred to the other day under this statute.
Mr. Wakeman—I think that point i; settled by section 6 of sub-section 1.
محمد
His Lordship-This is a cass in which a partner has the management of the business?
Mr. Dixon-Yes, my Lord. And it was a partner who absconded from the Colony. I knew the managing partner had run away and that there was danger of the property being disposed of or attached by the other oreditors if I did not issue a writ; therefore, I attached it.
His Lordship-What is your point? Is it that the absconding of the managing partner is not sufficient evidence of "an
Lot 2 bankruptcy?
Mr. Dixon-Yes, my Lord. Mr. Wakeman-I submit that it is, my Lord,
under section 6.
His Lordship-And you say it was in fact the act of bankruptcy in this case.
Mr. Wakeman-That is go, my Lord; and what Mr. Dixon should have done was to have filed a petition and got an interim receiving
order.
His Lordship-Would that have done as well ? Mr. Wakeman-Yes, my Lord. I should have gone into possession immediately.
His Lordship-Well, I must consider the application. The case is adjourned,
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE Mr. A. G. WISE (P¤18n= JUDGE)..
A DISPUTED BALANCE. Della Huard sued Marion Jarrell to racover: the sum of 8345, balanos due for money lent,
have been made out in the name of Messrs. Trevoux and Co., the lawful possession of the ship being in them, not in the owners. The contract in this case not having been made by the master, there was ncquestion to which French law could apply. His Lordship then dealt with the questions of a maritime lien, the material man, and other points raised by counsel, and, in conclusion, said that as a master had a maritime lien for disbursements, the natural course for suppliers of necessaries to adopt where there was a charter was that suggested in Williams and Bruce, pige 197; to obtain from the master either an assignment of his right to bring an action of his disbursements in rem, or an equivalent undertaking guarantes- ing that such action should be brought and
Mr. Master stated that the plaintiff lent the carried ou for the benefit of the material man,
defendant a sum of money in Huntingdon, West assuming that such assignment or guarantee Virginia, U.S.A. sometime last July, At were valid in law. Judgment would, therefore, that place the plaintiff and defendant met be entered for the defendant with costs. On several times, and defendant eventually in- be counter claim for damages through being formed the plaintiff that she wished to go to deprived of the ship's services when she was her brother in Manila. The plaintiff promised arrested, and through loss of interest upon the to take her as far as Hongkong and pay the amount of bail, there would be judgment for rest of her passage and all incidental expenses the plaintiffs.
connected with the journey. The defendant
Mr. R. F. C. Master (of Mesars" Tohnson, Stokes and Master) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. E. J. Grist (of Messrs Wilkinson and Grist) represented the defendant.
Page 10Page 11
1