Page
468
Mr. HUMPHREYS-My sympathies are with, the applicant. The reckless way in which the Board has in the past ordered reconstructions and repairs amounting to tens of thousands of dollars has brought property to its present parlous condition. In some cases it virtually amounts to confiscation. Poor owners are ruined and rich ones crippled. Certainly I pro test very strongly against this sort of thing being authorised on the recommendation only of an inspector, Let the Director of Public Works report on this case.
Mr. HOOPER-I think this matter should be compromised and the floor still made sanitary.
The Hon. Registrar GeneBAL-In a pre vious case of this kind did not some member of the P. W. D. inspect the premises?
A compromise, as suggested by Mr. Hooper, was adopted.
SUPREME COURT.
Monday, June 25th.
IN ORIGINAl JurisdicTION.
BEFORE SIE FRANCIS PIGGOTT (Chief
JUSTICE).
A DISPUTED WILL.
Judgment was delivered in the case of Li Po-kwai and another v. Li Ling-shi. This was a claim under a will for one sixteenth part of Marine Lot 239 and Inland Lot 1,355, and for an account of the rent and profits thereon.
Mr. M. W. Slade, instructed by Mr. John Hastings, appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. E. H. Sharp, K.C., and Hon. Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C., instructed by Mr. R. Harding (of Messrs. Ewans, Harston and Harding) represented the defendants.
i
|
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
巍
.
|
L
FOLLA
AN UNCOMPLETED CONTRAUT? Godmalne His Lordship delivered his deferred judgment in the case in which Ho Tang sued Chúng Shun-koo for the specific performance of anders agreement of lease, and to recover $6,000, arrears i
of rent.
*Mr. E. H. Sharp. K.C; instructed by Mri R. Stevenson (of Messre. Deacon; ~Looker-and- Deacon) appeared for the plaintiff, while Hdn. Mr. H. E. Pollock, K C., instructed by Mi Mỹ J. D. Stephens, represented the defendant.
however, discuss this question, for although the | the case of forgery sgili evidence is interesting, it is not of such im. A bins of forgerý senz portance that its rejection would have seri usly opinion be held to be hata. prejudiced the plaintiffs' onse, nor would it off therefore documents which I hold itself be sufficient to support the plaintiffs':) and which satisfy the requirela? case. The defends to the action is a general ute of Frands: "Judgment for denial, which in the box took the following | with costal - forms. The first defendant did not appear, Counsel stating that she was a Chinese lady and therefore could not or would not go into the box. A dangerous doctrine as it seems to me when the lady has been taking more or less active part in the man- agement of an estate, and one to which in the absence of more light I cannot subscribe. The second defendant went into the box and shook his head to everything. In | some things his negatives were equivalent to palpable untruths. I must not omit to men. His Lordship said he had already intimated * «. tion the fact that the plaintiff Li Po-kwai is that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment on- not wholly blameless in this respect. In one the claim, and that the defendant was entitled- particular his evidence fell short of the state-to judgment on the counter-claim, the question ments supplied to his Counsel, and secondly, reserved being as to the amount of damages. in spite of his denial there seems to have been The defendant so omfused bis oise with the no doubt that he was present at the division amount of details he introduced -that-it-was- of property at Li Sing's house on April 3, difficult to disentangle. It was clear the front 1900. No legal contingencies seem to me to shops were finished too late, and that the attach to his presence: the utmost that can be defendant was to have complete possession, said of it is that it affords grounds. for except the Daily Press, on July 1st. In- view - comment. As to the delay in bringing his of his finding on the principal point in the to action, that of course goes to his credit, but action, that the Daily Press was not to go out-s I cannot aftach any d-Anite contin- in February, defendant would not have let the gencies to this delay and the question upper floors until they were finished, therefore ⠀ of credit really hardly arises. I have been the alleged loss to Lauts, Wegener and Co.-or-
botice these matters obliged to
other person was immaterial. The premises were they were gone info a'.
but the trial, to have been finished by Messrs. Paligor and he whole and sole defence rests on the Statute Turner on October 15th, but they were, not- of Frauds. More fully it is alleged that the finished until November 15th As it was signatures to the documents I have numbered difficult to assess such damages, as there wore two and four and also to an inte med ate always so we contingent damage, which could document No 5 of Li Sing, are forged. An not actually be specified; his Lordship thought old schoolmaster was tendered as an expert in $1,500 would correctly express the counter. handwriting and in his view the signature to claim, therefore he thought defendant was -- four was genuine, so that the obarge of forgery entitled to judgment on the counter-olim for had a non-restricted area. The expert con. that amount. The plaintiff would be allowed ins sidered that the signature" Yak" to the m mo costs on the claim, and the' defendant 'on thes and that of Li Sing to five, were not genuine, counter-claim. His standards of comparisons were the "Yuk " & document produced by Sin Tak-fan known to contain the genuine" Yak' and for the Li Sing a series of signatures on documents admitted to be genuine. I protest against persons going into the box to give expert evidence who ignore the elements on which such opinions should be founded. Ho Kan-po compares B character written on Chinese paper with others written on glazed English paper, and in part bases his opinion
on
.
because
as to
one
certain strokes being sharp ia and blunt in the other. This is the merest triviality because although you may get crisp strokes on English paper the essential quality of brushwork ou Chinese paper is its crispness, which the quality of English paper does not lend itself to the provision of. And bis Yuk " (analysis was not much better, for I do not think be considered too carefully the conditions under which the two signatures respectively were written. One point especially was worthy of his attention. Both characters were obviously written with an almost dry pen, and there is no telling what will result from a dry pen. whether it will correctly produce in the way of loops and flourishes all that is required of it.
|
|
3
$48
Mr. Sharp asked his Lordship to consider s the costs in connection with the counter oláim The matter of costs was in his - Lordship's “ discretion, and his Lordship had god grounds for disallowing the costs of Chung Shun’· koo. Defendant refused specific perfo “mance» « on the grounds that the plaintiff had expressly promised that the Daily I'ress should live in February. This was his case; and Mr. Sharp÷jmn submitted that he should wholly prove that case.
His Lordship said he thought on the whole- that that part of the case could always have been separated from the case as put forward.. It certainly was put forward in compliosted, confused, and not very honest way. The defendant disassociated himself; in his Lords ship's mind, from the main case, and if Ho Tung had been well advised he would have seen. that there was some delay in the Daily Press not going ont until July. The ordinary rate- of costs would obtain.
Tuesday, June 26th.
His Lordship said-Li Sing was an old and wealthy Chinaman. He seems to have had other characteristics. He must have been wily, for he conceived the idea of dividing his property, or at least some $4,000,000 worth; between his sons before his death, thereby enabling them to enjoy it without paying the usual tribute to the Government. known by the name of succession duty. He also had somewhat hazy views of the subjects of what belonged to him and what did not: for there is one admitted instance of his having included in this sub-division among his sons, property valued at over $86,000, which belonged to the Lai Hing firm. It may well be that with declining years that delicate mental perception was wanting which was necessary to appreciate the somewhat complicated relations with the Lai Hing and with former owners of shares in the property, in the lots of land now in question. He also seems to have been a bit of a despot, for certainly Li Tsuk-chi, the executor of Li Ling's brother, Li Chit, did in the matter of the assignments to the sons what he was expected to do, trusting, I suppose, if he really kaew what he was about, to correct matters afterwards, as he did in the
саве above mentioned. The question is whether it is not necessary to make another correction in the case of the property in dispute in this action, and which was included in the assignment to Li Po-lung. The plaintiffs' story is that they were willing to purchase a share in the property belonging to ancestor Tam Lai- ting, and the way in which this was done was by means of a purchase by Li Sing, and a retrans- fer of the property by him to them, the terms being the payment to the vendor of 810,800) cash and the taking over the liabilities to the Lai Hing of $3,800. This transaction was proved by (1) a receipt from the Lai Hing of the sum of $10,8 0 from the Po Shuu-tung, that is, the two plaintiffs; (2) an entry in one of the Lai Hing books, abstracted by the pronounced in favour of the genuineness of the | appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. M plaintiff-publicly as he said-to the effect that the share was transferred to Li Sing, and on the same day parted up for the same price to the
plaintiffs; (3) a balance-sheet book was made out for, perusal of Po Chun-tung which dealt with the amount $3,830 due to the Lai Hing; (4) a balance-sheet book of the previous year belonging to Tam Lai-tong in which there is a record of the transaction so faras it relates to Li Bing. The verbal arrange. ment between plaintiff and Li Sing was tendered in evidence and objected to. I admitted it subject to consideration, I do not,
:
I should require much more skilled evidence to induce me to accept the proposition which seems to underlie this witness' evidence, that all Chioamen at all times and under all circumstances always write the characters of their names in an identical manner. It would ba impossible for me to find forgery on such evidence is was given. But the schoolmaster's evidence iş fatal to defendant who-called him. He practicilly
.
the
signature in exbibit 6, the balance sheet be- longing to Tam Sai-tung. The two signatures had been challenged like the signatures to the other documents, and there is no doubt that the original case was that this document was forg-| ed, but this was afterwards abandoned and the documents admitted to be genuine. It is true that this document only related to the first branch of the alleged. transaction, the sale to Li Ling, and not the transfer to the plaintiffs. But if you put a case of forgery forward and half of it breaks down or is abandoned, it re- quires an exceptionally strong case to support
|
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE SIR FRANCIS PIGGott (Chier
JUSTICE).
..
A DISPUTED CONSIDERATION,
Chan Tack sued Chin Yeung-leong to recover the sum of $2,000 balance of purchase money in respect of the sale of" certain property.
Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C., instructed by Mr. G. Hastings. (of Mr. John Hastings'
Slade, instructed by Mr. F. X. d'Almada e Castro, for the defendant.
Mr. Pollock said the writ in this case was issued on June 5th, 1905, the statement of claim was filed on November 11th, 1906, the statement of defence on December 12th and the amended statement of defence on June 14 h; 1996. On the pleadings it was stated that this property was held by Chan Tuck-in trust for · Châu Kwing-yam as beneficial owner. “In their amended statement of defence the defendant mid that in reality Chau Tick held the property for Chan Kwing-yam, and that
i.