306
THE HONGKÓNI WEEKLY PRESS AND
performance of an agreement to purobase certain, property and payment of the balance of the price or such other relief as the Court may deem fit. Mr. E. H. Sharp, K.C., instructed by Mr. Lane (of Messrs. Deacon, Looker and Deacon), appeared for the plaintiffs, while defendant was not represented.
Mr. Sharp said his Lordship had made an order under which plaintiffs proceeded with that sotion ex parte." The writ was issued on 17th January last and on 23rd February the defendant absconded. In due course plaintiffs, who were father and son, filed their statement of claim in which it was stated that defendant agreed to purchase certain leasehold property for £80,000, subject to the payment of 88,000 by defendant in respect of mortgages previously held, but only $2,000 had been paid.
Plaintiffs were heard in support of their olaims, after which, his Lordship gave judgment for plaintiffs, in the terms asked, or in the alternative damages to be assessed by enquiry before the Registrar,
Friday, April 27th.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE ME. A. G. WISH
(PUISNE JUDGE).
THE PRESS EXONERATED. An Indian watchman sued a Chinese com. positor for $37,
Mr. Otto Kong Sing appeared for defendant and admitted the debt. He said that $10 was borrowed in exchange for a promissory note for $37.
His Lordship (referring to the case at the Polios Court on Wednesday, when Maoua Singh, au Indian watchman, summoned Messrs. Watson and Co. for wrongful dismissal in consequence of an alleged false newspaper report of his action at the Supreme Car- notion that an old friend of mine was at the Police Court the other day, and made some very curious remarks. If I said "* don't want to see him here Once,
I said it a dozen times.
Mr Gardiner (who was present in another case) That was not the denial It was the statement that the man ought to be dismissed,
His Lordship-I spoke rather stronger thau I was re, orted. I told him he ought to be dismissed. I said it twice, and it was reported once I say it again. I asked once why Watson's did not dismiss him, because he was a useless man. On one occasion I tried to get out o. him why he was able to appear in Court 80 often. It was suggested he was a night watch- man, which rather took me back, but it turned out he was not a night watchman.
If he
Mr. Gardiner-No, he was not. His Lordship-He told me he was. was a night watchman he could spend his days as he liked.
Mr. Gardiner-I explained to your Lordship His Lordship-Judgment for plaintiff with
costa.
CAUGHT ASHORN.
In Tong was sued by the Tin Wo Cheung Kee for $63.13.
Mr. Otto Kong Sing, who appeared for plaintiff, said defendant was employed on one of the warships and defendant was not allowed to go on board to serve the writ.
His Lordship-How did you catch him? Mr. Otto Kong Sing-Üb, be came ashore and we caught him in the street.
Defendant asked his Lordship to allow him to pay in three or four installments.
Mr. Otto Kong Sing said he could not sooept that.
His Lordship-No, you will never see him again if you let him go now.
Judgment for plaintiff with costs.
In Bankruptcy JURISDICTION,
BEFORE SIR Francis Piggott (Chiep JUSTICE).
BANK COMPRADORE'S FAILURE.
The public examination of Lau Wai-chun, formerly compradore of the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, was commenced. Mr. R. C. Master (of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master) appeared for the petitioning creditor, and Mr.
H. J. Gedge (of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master) appeared for Lan Wai-chun.
Debtor, in reply to Mr. Wakeman, Official Receiver, said he was formerly head compradore of the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, a position which he had held for fourteen years. He had no other business. His salary from the bank was 8625 per month, in addition to which be received commission,
nover bad
It was correct that his liabilities smounted to $303,657. About 360,000 of that was money borrowed by him, bat as for the rest he stood security jointly with others. Out of the 8503,000 odd he only received $80,000. He did not remember when he first commenced borrowing money, but he did so from time to time. From the Yu Fat Fat Bank he borrowed about $10,000 for his own use, and the balance was guarantee. The Wong Fuk firm bor- rowed the money and he and others stood security. The money, 8300,000 odd, was not borrowed by him; he only stood security. He was a sleeping partner in the Wong Fuk firm. The $30,000 odd was due by the firm and not by him alone. The money was borrowed from the Lai Hing Bank. Out of that sum $70,000 was raised on mortgage of certain houses in Lyndhurst Terrace, owned by him and Ms Fa Ting jointly. Of the moneys advanced to the Wong firm the money was sent up to Canton. Ma Fa Ting received all the money. Witness was never a partner in the Lai Hing Bank, and
interest any share or
in it. He knew that Ma Fa Ting bad sworn that he was a partner in the Lai Hing Bank because eh read the newspapers, but it WBS not true. Neither had he a firm under the name of Mo Fak Hong, nor was he a Wing Sing Loong. He knew Wong Sau Po, partner in either the Wai Tang firm nor the who was the manager of the Lai Fung firm; he used to bay goods from him, but if he said be was his partner he said what was not true. When be was compradors of the Hongkong Bank he bought many bills for large amounts from the Lai Fung, and the Lai Fung got the money from the Hongkong and hanghai Bauk, and the Bank had to collect the money in Penang, Singapore, Rangoon and other places from the Lai Fung's agents. The Lai Hing also sold bills. He did not remember on whose name the bills were drawn. It was a fact that he asked Wong Sau Po to guarantee those bills, but he did not remember exactly. The bills were sold to the Bank under the names of Hong Sing Loong and others. As regarded the money, the Bank paid for these bills; they were all handed over to the Wong Fang Com- pany of Canton, and a lottery company of which he was a partner. It was untrue that he applied for shares in the Lai Fang Biak. He did not keep any account book regarding those moneys. He did not have the money. It all went to Ma Fa Ting and others.
He had no other property than his furniture Terrace. He first became aware that he wat and bis share in the property in Lyndhurse unable to meet his liabilities in January, Febru- ary or March of this year. A year ago he was able to meet his liabilities if the debts due to him had been paid, but all the people were hard up. The sum of $50,000 due from the Wong Fang bad not been paid, and the guarantor was a rica man in M cao-Loong Chap Chi. He was also one of the partners in the Wour Fung.
Mr. Master the examined the debtor on behalf of the petitioning creditor. In reply to him Lau Wai-chun admitted owing the the Viceroy shutting down on the lottery petitioning creditor the money claimed. By
about. company, bankrupt's difficulties were brought
On the application of Mr. Dixon, soting for another creditor, the examination was adjourn. ed for a fortnight.
The German land-owners at Hankow met on April 6th and settled the arrangements for their new municipal Government. Taxes on land, house, imports and exports, vehicles, launches, etc., were decided on. Land is fo contribute one- third per o9nt; buildings five per cent. rental value; assessments to be made every December. The budget receipts stood at Tis. 19,680. The following municipal councillors were elected for 1906, Messrs, E. Mirow, H. Schlichting, F. W. Bandow, W. Herensperger, and F. Muller.
|
|
(April 30, 1908. ^
POLICE COURT. Wednesday April 25th.
Before Mr. F. A. Haziland (FIRST POICE MAGISTRATE).
THE MORPHINE BEIKURES, The hearing of the claim for the eleven cases of mariste of morphine confiscated to the Opiüm Farmer was continued.
Mr. F. B. Deacon (of Messrs. Descon, Looker Mr. John Hastings appeared for a claimant and Descon) appeared for the Opium Farmer, who claimed seven cases, and Mr. H. G. C. Bailey (of Messrs Johnston, Stokes and Master) for Messrs. McEwen, Frickel and Co,, whose claim was for four cases.
His Worship-Are there claims for all the cases forfeited ?
Mr. Hastings-Yes, your Worship; I claim seven and Mr. Bail-y claims four.
another seven out of a shipment which arrived Mr. Bailey--I have also put in a claim for by another steamer.
Mr. Hastings-I claim some of that shipment
as well.
His Worship-I don't think we need go into that at present. It is not before the Court.
Mr. Deacon-First of all, your Worship. I have a preliminary objection to take to my friends applications. I apprehend that they are asking for a re-hearing of the cases. It is quite true that under section 97 of the Magis frates' Ordinance your Worship has power on such ground as you shall on your discretion deem sufficient to review your adjudication, and upon such review to re-open or re-hear the period in which they can come in and claim case, but my friends want an extension of the this opinion.
His Worship-That is not a technical objec- tion. Do I understand that your point is that they are not entitled to apply for a^re-hearing ?
Mr. Deacon-Yes
His Worship-You are going into the merits of the case and contend they are not entitled to make their application ?
operation of the principal Ordinance the opium Mr. Deacon-Yes; what I say is that by
is forfeited. I will go so far as to say that it does not require your Worship's decision that the opium should be forfeited. of the statute it is actually forfeited, and that By operation being so they cannot apply for i1, but can apply for a review.
His Worship-Then why did you apply to me for an order /
Mr. Deacon-I might have done it out of an abundance of caution. This is a pure question of law. It may be, or it may not be, that your Worship's order is necessary. 1 am not aub. mitting that, although I may have asked for it as a matter of caution. As pure point of law it is unnecessary, as the opium is absolutely forfeited this way: all they can ask your Wership to do is ipso facto. It touches my friends' position in to reconsider your decision that the morphine should be forfeited to the Opium 'armer, but that would be useless to my friends if they are not to have a chance of recovering it, which they will not if the point I take is correct in law.
His Worship-I am satisfied that there is power for me to grant a re-hearing, and I pro- pose that in this case the application should be for an order absolute, not an order nisi.
Mr. Hasting My friend, Mr. Bailey, and I are in exetly the same position in this we propose to hear the two claims together. matter, and with your Worship's permission
His Worship-The applications will be consolidated.
Mr. Hastings said he claimed seven cases of morphine on behalf of the Kwong Wing San firm of Shanghai; he had supplied Mr. Deacon with copies of the marks on the cases. Mr. Bailey said he claimed four cases on behalf of Mesars. MoEwen, Frickel & Co. as the transhippers, and the China and Japan Trading Co of Shanghai, who to the best of his knowledge were the owners.
Mr. Hastings, in stating the facts of his claim, said his client ordered this morphine from England for a European firm in Shanghai, and the documents were in the hands of the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank there. He intended sending for them as soon as possible. His client sent instructions
Page 10Page 11