200
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
His Lordship-Then a bill which is taken by the Bank in renewal of another bill should be entered too surely, or else there is no record of that document.
Witness-It is pinued to the other and put in the same box.
Mr. Slade They asked for a wider injunction than they were entitled to. They have embar- rassed the company in a most improper way, They had no right to come ex parte and ask your Lordship to grant such an injunction. We did not come into court then because we desired to have their points in black ind white. The result of the plaintiff's action was to embarass the company very improperly for several months. The action taken by the plain-accountant, who was accountant a the time. tiff shows clearly that is injunction was to do as much damage as he could in the hope of being bought out.
His Lordship Would the injunction prevent another meeting being held ?
Mr. Slade-Yes. They have prevented us from doing anything.
Mr. Pollock--No.
Mr. Slade-We have been disobeying the injunction by carrying on the tramway at all. Continuing, he said-If you find that we have done wrong you should merely ask us to give an undertaking not to proceed with the resolution as to the sale until another meeting had been called and the matter either approved or dis- approved by the shareholders. In view of the overwhelming majority held by those who assented to this scheme, there would not be the slightest difficulty in carrying it out. Any interference of the Court would put the com- pany to a great deal of expense without any benefit to the plaintiff, who c n always get the amount for his shares decided by arbitration I would, in conclusion, ask your Lordship to dismiss the action.
Mr. Pollock addressed the court. He asserted that the points he made out in opening had been untouched practically by his learned friends. Nobody intended that the company should be wound up because it was desirable that it should be wound up. The only object of the scheme was with a view to re-construction. If the hopes that there would have been uo opposition had been fulfilled, there would have been no occasion for winding up the company Under the resolution passed it was beyond the power of the liquidators to say whether shareholders should take cash or shares. It was at the option of the shareholders themselves. After dwelling on the definitions of re-construction and amalgamation, he affirmed that this was not a sale involving their having nothing further to do with the tramway company, but it was a re-constraction. They were told that there was a chance of acquiring a new concession which would benefit the shareholders, and they were told it would be to their advantage that the old company should change its name and work the tramway. Neither could it be considered a sale by the liquidator in liquidation. Did anyone believe that if the tramway were advertised for sale, it would not bring a greater sum than that offered? The price of the shares was fixed by the majority, and it was wholly inadequate in view of the figures put before his Lordship,
The hearing was again adjourned.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
NATIONAL BANK OF CHINA V. P. LEMAIRE AND C).
The further hearing of the claim by the National Bank of China against P. Lemaire and Co. was resumed, this being a special sitting for a continuation of evidence by Mr. Playfair. Mr. H. E. Sharp K. C., instructed by Mr. H. W. Looker (of Messrs. Deacon, Looker and Deacon) appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. M. W. Blade. instructed by Mr. F. P. Hett (of Messrs. Bratton, Hett and Goldring), represented the defendants.
His Lordship-But the record in the books then would be inc mplete.
Witness-We will be able to call the
Mr Sharp-It is regarded as one thing being together, and one entry would suffice.
ross-examined by Mr. Elade Did you from time to time make out statements of Edwards, Piry and Co.'s position and forward them to Edwards, Piry & Co.?—I think you had better wait until the accountant is examined.
No, Mr. Playfair, we want it from you ?--If you ask me regarding any particular one I will tell you.
Mr. G. W. F. Playfair was further examined de bene esse. He said the entry of Lemaire's bill in the book was perfectly correct and Justified because it was only in that book that securities, promissory notes, etc., which were held by the Bank and belonged to the bank were entered. There was another book in which were entered the securities belonging to constitu- ents called the Register of Custody Receipts Issued. In the first book were entered the documents in respect of claims, such as mort gages or charges of various kinds, but always documents the bank was holding for itself; and in the other book wakela
entered documents, boxes, eto, which the bank held on behalf of other | people.
Is that statement (shown statement) yours? - Yes, I initialed it myself. Where did you get it P
Mr. Slade-I got it from Lowe aud Bing. ham, secountants. Can you tell me why, under the circumstances, if you had received this bill of exchange that you have called a promissory note in your Custody Book in settlement of this same acceptance, you did not enter it there. (Quotes first line of 8 atement) ?—Well, it was known to the Bank that we had it, so there was
|
|
no occasion to do that.
Mr. Sharp-It was not money. Mr. Slade--No more were the promissory
notes morey.
Wi'ness-What were known as Plant's bills were known to 08.
Mr. Slade Can you produce press copies of subsequent statements ? They were copied, were they not P-Judging from this one, it has not been copied at all. It is an original and bas my initials in pencil.
You have a book containing press copies of these statements? That is a matter for the accountant.
Mr. Slade-Now you cau ed an action to be commenced against Plant for the amount of the clls due by him to the firm of Edwards, Piry and Co. ?—I had an action? No.
But you caused an action against Plant ?—I had nothing to do with it.
You had nothing to do with these actions brought for the collecting of calls from Edwards, Piry and Co.?-I authorised no action.
And say you had nothing to do with them ?— I authorised no action. I don't even r member about any action. I know there were calls due.
Did you tell Wilkinson and Grist you had an action started ?-Wilkinson and Grist were not my solicitors.
You were guaranteeing them; they were Edwards, Piry & Co.'s solicitors.I was only guaranteeing because it was for the collection of outstanding debts.
on
But they were going to collect money calls-There was nothing authorised by me. Now you can take my word for that. I had nothing to do with their quarrels.
↑
You know nothing about an action ?—I knew something about it, but you are not to put into my mouth what I don't say. I knew something about it and that is all I intend to tell you.
I want you to be perfectly straightforward ?- You are trying to make me say what I will not say.
|
I understand you will not say a good many things P-I have sworn to say the truth, and nothing but the truth, and nothing will I say but the truth.
Is it true that you knew something about the actions?—I don't say anything about the actions. I knew share oslls were due.
His Lordship-I thought you said you knew something of what was going on?-Witness: I knew something was going on, but I was not at all mixing myself up with that.
Mr. Slade-You knew something was going on in respect of shares of Edwards, Piry and Co. P-Yes, I know that.
Did you know that actions had been com- menoed against Edwards, Piry and Co.'s share- holders who had not paid calls ?—No, that is the first statement I have heard of that.
I put it to you, Mr. Playfair, that the total amount due by Plant was $15,000, against which he claimed to be entitled to deduct 85,400 in respect of galary due to him as manager of Edwards, Piry and Co., leaving a balance of
March 18, 1906,
89,600, and that he gave you a draft for that amount -He gave me a bill on his own "frm for that amount, I know.
Was that amount made ap in the way I have indicated to you -I don't remember anything of the details.
Don't you remember the fact that that was calls P-Most probably, but I don't remember it. Let me remind you, Mr. Playfair. Here is a letter which was forwarded to you by a London manager from Showell and Co., dated the 18th of March, 1904.
Witness, having read the letter, said
That is so. He paid half the bill of $9,000, Accord- ing to that statement it was for the shares,
Mr. Slade--Now, you are reminded by that that it was so. That was so, but I don't like to say a thing I don't remember.
Witness said Mr. Bingham, as attorney for Plant, drew a cheque on the National Bank of Chion in favour of the Guarantee Trust Co. of New York, and that cheque witness refused to honour. The Guarantee Fraát Cô, was the bank to which Joseph Showell and Co. trans. ferred their bills in London.
t
Re-examined by Mr. Sharp-Mr. Bingham was the attorney of Plant as liquidator of Edwards. Piry and Co. when Plant went away. Plant left the Colony on the 2 th of March, but he was in Hongkong again-passing through on the 9th of April. It was at Plant's request that the documents and bills of lading were handed over to him as manager and liqui dator of Edwards, Piry and Co. He had powers under the articles of association of that company, and the only occasion on which wit- ness ever dealt with him in any other capacity · than manager and liquidator of Edwards, Piry and Co. was on the occasion that Plant came to him as from Mr. Lemaire, when he wanted the bill of exchange for $10,000 renewed.
::
By His Lordship-As manager of the bank * all questions of credit and all bills of exebange and promissory notes that were to be dealt with were
decided by him (witness) as manager of the bank slone, the details being left to the accountant in the outside office. As to whether a bill of exchange was to be held, that was entirely his own responsibility.
The examination was then closed.
Wednesday, March 14th.
IN ORIGINAL JURIFDICTION.
GAN ME
BEFORE SIR FRANCIS PIGGOTT (CHI F JUSTICE).
THE PEAK TRAMWAY LITIGATION.
The hearing of the action at the instance of D. E. Brown and others against the Hongkong High Level Tramway Company and Messrs. J. D. Humphreys and Son was resumed. Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C., appeared for the plaintiffs. He was instructed by Mr. Geo, Hastings (of the office of Mr. John Hastings) in the interests of plaintiff and by Mr. C. D. Wilkinson on behalf· of the other dissentients. Mr. E. H. Sharp, K.C., and Mr. M. W. Slade, instructed by Mr. Harston (of Messrs. Ewens, Harston, and Harding), appeared for the defendants.
Mr. Pollock resumed his reply. His Lordship-You say that the form of injunction which was granted was right ?~-5;
Mr. Pollook-Yes.
His Lordship-In that course it would follow that the liquidation should not have continued. Therefore the receipts which have been issued by the liquidators are practically wrong ?
Mr. Pollock-It may be wrong. Of course it does not make any practical difference. Mesars. Humphreys and Sons, who were the liquidators appointed by the resolution, which may or may be valid, were the general managers of the old
company.
His Bordship-Strictly speaking, the com- pany should revert to its normal position.
Mr. Pollock Yes technically so. His Lordship That would be the result? Mr. Pollock Undoubtedly,
Mr. Sharp--I think, my Lord, if tlist point arises, ti at could'on'y result if the resolutions be set aside. You are asked to set them adde.
His Lordship—No, no, that the result of the injunction.
Mr. Sharp-- What sri certain resolutions which