Page
•
March 19, 1906.J
SUPREME COURT.
Friday, March 9th.
IN ORIGINAl JurisdictION,
BEFORE SIR Francis Piggott (Chief
Justice) and MR. A. G. WISE
(PUISNE JODGE).
THE NATIONAL BANK OF CHINA, LD. v.
P. LEMAIRE AND CO.
This case, in which the plaintiffs claimed from the defendants the sum of $10,000 on a bill of exchange, again caine on for hearing.
Mr. F. H. Sharp, K.C., instructed by Mr. H: W. Looker (of Messrs. Deacon, Lcoker and Descon) appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. M. W. Slade, instructed by Mr. F. P. Hett (of Meers. Brutton, Hett and Goldring), for the defendants.
The Chief Justices said-We think it must have been apparent to both parties that the Court took a very strong view with regard to the evidence to be derived from the books of the bank and, subject of course to anything Mr. Sharp may have to say, we are strongly of opinion that the case cannot be carried further than the books, and that as
there did not show there was any credit given to Edwards, Piry & Co's. liquidators' account when they took the bill and the promissory note, they cannot be held to be holders in due course. We thought it right to let you know at once we considered the matter yesterday- in order to save both sides enormous trouble and the cost that would be involved in hunting through the books. The only question is that as Mr. Sharp may have a great deal to say in the matter, we want you clearly to realise the view we take that as the books do not show that the documents, the bill of exchange and the pro- missory note, were taken and credit given for them, the bank was merely the holder for collection, and not in due course. That seems the only inference to be drawn from Curry v. Misis and the Clydesdale Bank case; so it now remains for you to decide what steps you would like to take.
Mr. Sharp-I should like to consider your Lordships observations. quite apprehend your Lordships' position, and am very much obliged for the intimation. I think if I am able to meet the C880 it will not be on Mr. Playfair's personal evidence, as
his knowledge of the books is not large.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
* BEFORE SIE FRANCIS Piggott (Chier
JUSTICE.)
LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED.
In the matter of the claim of To King to land in the New Territories known as claim S. survey district No. 2 and in the matter of the New Territories Land Court Ordinance 1900 and 1904.
Sir H. 8. Berkeley Attorney General, instructed by Mr. F
Bowley, Crown Solicit r, made applics 100.
.:
|
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
of land comprised in what is described as a large ↑ strip of foreshore which is not covered by water at high tide, and has not been reclaimed. The first proposition I submit I will be able to establish is that all the land in the New Ter- ritories is by virtue of the concession of the Territories and also by virtue of the operation of the Land Court Ordinance of 1900, prima facie the property of the Crown, and that any person (a claimint before the Land Court) claiming land in the New Territories à sit thrown upon him to establish a claim superior to that which prima facie is in the Crown. It is for the Land | Court to establish the fact that a claimant is entitled to land within the territories of the King. There have been decisions in this Court to that effect and your Lordship will observe that we are not appealing against the whole decision, but only that portion which allows waste land to the claimant.
The Attorney General-I move for leave to appeal to the full court against so much of a decision or finding of the Land Court as allowed the claim of one To King to waste land within the boundaries nentioned. I move on the grounds that such allowance is erroneous inasmuch as To King did not establish any title to such waste land in the New Territory as agains; the Crown. The application is made under Ordinance No. 13 of 1903, and your Lordship will observe that by that Ordinance at any time before a title has been granted power is given to the Chief Justice, when proper cause is made out, to grant leave to the Crown to appeal against any judgment of the Land Court delivered either before or after the passing of that Ordinance. The grounds on which I establish cause for your Lordship to make an order are set out in an affidavit by the Crown Eolicitor, and the portion which is the subject of my applica tion is what may to described as waste land. The Government has granted a Crown lease for wide extent of cultivated, orchard land and houses and for a part described as the whole village of Aushiwan, but we dispute the right of the claimant to ask for a grant of any portion
|
His Lordship Is it your contention that the lease of the New Territories to the Crown of England transfers the rights of the Crown of China to the Crown of Fngland?
The Attorney General-Absolutely, during the term of that convention. The authority for that contention will be Ordinance No. 4 of 190) section 17. We have it established that all land in the New Territories is the property of the Crown, but in order to prevent mis- appropriation, the Government must grant to every person who establishes a claim. When the and Court reports to the Government its finding the Government must give a title appropriate to the claimant. What we say here is that the Land Court have had no right to find this man entitled to receive any title from the Govern- ment in respect of waste land. Your Lordship will find from reference that waste land cannot be held in China.
|
|
His Lordship granted the application for leave to appeal, on a date to be fixed.
IN BANKRUPTCY.
ADJUDICATED BANKRUPT.
Re the Shum Wo Sang Sang firm, ex parte Chan Wing, creditor,
This was a public examination by Mr. G. H. Wakeman, official receiver, Mr. F. X. d'Al- mada e Castro appeared for petitioning creditor.
Lai Yuk-san said he was a partner in the bankrupt firm of coal merchants. The other was Wong Yu-nam. They started business in January or February of 1904 with a capital of $4,000, of which witness invested $2,500. They sold coal to two steam launches, eighteen houses and two establishments at Canton. Witness managed the business and his other partner sat down in the shop.
Mr. Wakeman--Do you mean he did nothing? -Sometimes people brought in money, and he
took it.
What did he pay for his share P—$1,500. Did he draw any ?-No.
Did he receive wages?—Yes, at the rate of 85 per month.
Did he get the interest on his capital?— There was a loss, and in consequence no interest to receive,
What did you pay your fokis?-Some $5, some 86 and some 86.50.
Do you supply them with food? -Yes; also barbers, tobacco, etc.
Then your partner was paid less than the ordinary fokis of the shop ?--Yes.
Where did you get the $2,500 to put into the business -It was my savings.
How much do you spend a year ?-About 8250.
How do you account for the business suspend. ing payment ?-Owing to bad debts, which we were unable to collect.
The public examination was closed and on
application of Mr. the
Almada. the
Wake debtors adjudicated bankrupt. Mr.
official rec-iver, being appointed
80.
trustee.
CONNAUGHT HOUSE FAILS.
Re the Hong Lok tes Tai (or Connaught House) ex parte the debtors.
197
of $7,500. They took over the hotel of/ Nov" 1st, 1904, paying $7,000 for it. They took over the lease and furniture from Ho Pofan. Witness noted as steward, and looked after the provisions and servants. He had not drawn anything out of the business. His malary was 325 per month, and out of that amount be paid $5 to the godown-keeper, ́ ́ They paid $1,650 monthly for rent of the hotel For the first few months the business paid, but between August and September last there was a scarcity of boarders. Some boarders left” owing them over 82,000. Witness had nothing to do with the receipt of monies, but there might have been a disagreement among the partners in connection with this matter.
Another public examination conducted by the Official · Receiver. Mr. H. Hursthouse (of Messrs. Dennys and Bowley) appeared for the debtors.
Chao Hing-lun said he was one of the partners of the Connaught House Hotel, Altogether there were five with a total capital
Li Chun-ng, sworn, said he acted as compra... dore and took charge of the monies received. There was no dispute between the partnera about monies received. If he was absent one of the other partners could receive a payment.
|
In answer to Hung Mok-boi, ▲ creditor, he said they owed $1,600 for house rent and 830 од account of furniture. He did not know whether they had not paid for provisions supplied for the last four months, and could not state the total amount received, even approximately. The Company paid a solicitor $100 for representing them in this matter. He did not know that during the ̈ last four months they had collected $15,000 frɔm visitors and boarders.
After another partner had been called the examination was adjourned.
SANITARY MEASURES RESPONSIBLE.
Re Mak Kwai-cheung ex parte the debtor. The Official Receiver conducted this public examination, and Mr. A. J. Gardiner (of Mr. O. D. Thomson's office) represented the debtor.
Mak Kwai-cheung said he was master of the Chinese wine shops known as the Fu Yee and the Sui San Yin. He started the first business thirteen or fourteen years ago with a capital of $2,000. For a time business was good and he made between $200 and $300 a year, which was just sufficient to pay his family expenses. He opened the second shop about two years ago.
How do you account for your failure-I have had to pay a heavy licence fee, and of late business has been bad.
How is that P--On account of the laws intro- duced by the Sanitary Board in connection with overorowding. Previously large numbers of people occupied one flat, but many were forced to get houses of their own. On account of having to pay higher rent their profits were reduced, and as a consequence they have had to refrain from drinking sanshin.
The examination was closed and on the application of Mr. Gardiner the debtor adjudi- cared bankrupt, the official receiver being appointed trustee.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE MR. A. G. Wisɛ (Puisne Judge).
A LUKONG SUED,
Wadhama Singh sued lukong Kwong Tui to recover the sum of 810, money lent.
Defendant admitted the debt,
His Lordship-Another policeman, but the Captain Superintendent knows about it, I suppose.
Defendant If I am given a wook's time I can pay it all off.
His Lordship-You can arrange that with the plaintiff. I wonder you are not dismissed. It is against the regulations to borrow or lend. There will be judgment for the plaintiff 'with costs.
NEWSPAPER SUBSCRIPTIONS IN ARREAN.-# Mr. G. Murray Bain, proprietor of the China Mail, sued J. Lockhead, of Quarry Bay, "to recover 857.80, being for subscription to the paper from January, 1954, to August, 1904.
The claim having been proved, his Lordship gave judgment for the plaintiff with costs.
AN ANCIENT WARD.
Kalla Sing proceeded against Tim Kam Fuk and Wing Shing to recover $200 due for money lent. -
The second defendant appeared in "Court in charge of a Chinese woman, who wished to conduct his case, but on learning that she was not one of the defendants his Lordship ordered her to stand aside.