Page
March 9, 1907.]
ад
|
Į
|
į
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
159
and the maid $21,636, tog-ther with interest ¦ defendant han Wai Chi in his statémat on the said amount at eight per cent. The With of defence stated that he had in his possession question but he objected to produce them or power documents relating to the matters
the ground that they were privileged munications between client, solicitor and
accept the signing the policy the Company agreed to estimate of vine given by the plaintiff, which they had requested him to give, and which they inserted in the policy. regard to the condition that the plaintiff him self should insure for $12,0014, Iron of opinion that he has fulfilled it; for on the finding that the raine of $95,1**t was taken as the basis of the insurance, the balanc+ Säitasi was not insured in the pisintiff was in fact his own insurer to this
other BILY
ompany, and therefore amount ; this was the amonat which, from his own point of view and accepted by the Com..., pany, he himself had at risk.
Judgment must therefore be for the plaintiff with costs.
MANY CLAIMANTS,
The Fat Kee firm and the Hung Sheung firm were plaintiffs, and the defendants were C'han Wai Chi and the Offic: 1. Receiver in the bank- ruptcy of the Kwong Yik Wo and the Yau On Marine and Fire Insuraues Company Led., and Chai Kee.
The Hon. Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C., instruct. appeared for Fat Kee and Hong Shenag. Sir ed by Mr Bowley of Messrs. Dennys and Bowley | Henry Berkeley, K.C, instructed by Mr. Holborrow, of Messrs Deacon, Looker and Deacon, acted for the Yan On Company, who, it was explained, were plaintiffs as well as clai. mauts in the issue ; Mr. M. Slade, instructed by Mr. Wilkinson, represented Chan Wai Chi, and
defen (aut Mr. Calturop appeared for Chai K, one of the
ONTI
|
¦ su
on
comm
comused.
menced
sad said that the action was originally com. Mr. Pollock opened the case for the plaintiffs
Shenng against the Po On Insurance Company by the Fit Ke and the Hung
and Chan Wai Ch. The Po On got oal of
| the issue, learing sreal claimants i, the field. anybody appear for the
His Honour :—[} »« Official Rec-iser ?
Mr Pollock -No In a claim 10:
NOI) KA we are all
Mr. Pollok continued his length and the case was adjourned.
i
opening L
case of “
the second defendaut, while Mr. P. W. Goldring fof Messrs, Goldring and Barlow) watched the proceedings on behalf of others converged.
a new house-than be was before the lose. But what the law does say is that he must not be in a worse position, otherwise insurance would cease to be a contract of indemnity. The only possible middle course in the case of a ship,¦ admittedly old when purchased and on which money has been expended for constructive 10. pairs, would be to award the owner enough money to enable him to purchase a vessel in as good a condition as his repaired vessel, supposing such a vessel to be on the market. But taking the case one step further, if a ressel ; has, as the Macao had, cost its owner a cousider. able sum for repairs of all sorts; if a vessel which he bought as a very old one bas cost far more even than be anticipated, far more than is market value as a repaired ship, far more than any such ship ought to have cost him, why should be not insure her for the full amount which she has actually cost him? I know of no principle of law which prevents him : Th- law only steps in and says, "make it a matter of agreement with the Insurance Co. then you can recover, And it is in order to prevent all sorts of questions, such those I have indicated, being raised after the
ALLEGED LARCENY OF TOBACCOS loss has actually occurred, that the "ralued
C. H. Kane, shipping clerk, nad Ho Kwai, policy" has been introduced into practice; and
tallyman, were arraigned on charges of stealing the law in dealing with them treats such poli- cies by the light of the law applicable to
100 esses of "Egyptian Delight " tobacco valued similar contracts
at $75); four cases of "Three Castle" cigarettes If the assured has value
vined at $1,70; and ore bis ship at so much, and the assurers have
Pirato" accepted the valuation, there is an end of the
cigar (tes valued at $177, the property of the maiter, save in the case of fraud, or perhaps
! British Ain-rican Tohaces Co, such over-valuation as might I held to be
Mr. M. JD Stephens pros cated, Mr. J. H. The plaintiffs are merchants carrying evidence of fraud. But the question of frand does
Gardiner pot 3tr. O. 1)}) I
Thomson's offic») not arise in this case, I have no doubt that () )ik defeu ant is a ship carpenter careying on busi. ¦ f
business at & On Ta Street, Victoria, wh is the appeared for the first defendant, Mr. R. Harding Tong having expended such large sums on his vessel, did intend to insure her for as much as
ness at 178 Wing Lok Strest. Li King Shock, ¦ possible on the basis of that amount; the only
who traded under the style and wame of the a wong Yik Wo carried on business as a for question therefore is, did the Insurance Co, merchant until 22nd January, 195, when he accept his valuation? The answer turus on the absconded from the Colony. This firm of meaning of the words "estimated value" which Kwong Yik Wo had borrowed large sums of were inserted in the policy, and as I inve
money at interest from the plaintiff. The stated in my preliminary judgment, the solution of this ambiguous phrase must be either, that
sums were: Szujuxton 28th March, 1904, from the Fat Koe, Sto00 on 23rd May, 19444, from the the Company accepted the estimate given by the Itung Sheung, $10,0 41 on 18th O-taber, 1904, plaintiff, or that they treated it merely as a basis from the Fat-Kee, $10,080 ng the s me date for future negotiations as to what the actual from the Hang Skeung, and $23,0* on 26th value was, in the event of ber being lost. This October, 1904, from both fiama jointly, The adopts the two meatings, indeed the only two rate of interest was varied from time to time by meanings, which can be given 10 the words "esti. mutual mated value." I have come to that conclusion that
agreement aud the said loans with the exception of the last named were ľa. the Company accepted the estimate of value newed from time to time. The sum of given by the plaintiff As the on which they entered into the coutract. of
basis upwards of $87,000 438 still owing by
the Kwong Yik Wo firm to insurance. The reasons which induce me to tiffs. Defendants gave large quantities of flour, come to this conclusion are the following :- The proposal was before the Company for about
in security, 72,000 bags in all, these being stored in the godowns of the Hop Yik Chan, a month before it was actually effected: the which original estimate of vaine being "90 add
firm agreed to hold the bags to the order of the plaintiffs. Subsequently many of thousand dollars, which differs so ivappreciably the bags were wrongfully removed by the from the "95,000)," afterwards adopted, as to be Kwong Yik Wo firm and geer-tly disposed of. immaterial. The original offer of the company On the 22nd January, 1905, 33,00 bags were was to insure up to $30,000, which was after taken away by Chan Wai Chi who stored them wards raised to $40,000, showing clearly that the in the godowns of the Po On Company, 190, (ompany must have devoted some consideration to the actual value of the vessel. Captain Douglas
in the name of Wing Kee and 14,000 in the had retainer from the Company to report on
name of Chai K. On the 27th February, 195, prior to the commencement of these pro. proposals for insurance: be did in fact report ceedings, Chan Wai Chi wrongfully caused on the Macao in respect of her capacity to bags out of the said 14,008) to be rem ved from, carry cargo on the voyage to Amoy. The the godowas of the P. On Campany. These Company, therefore, had it in their power to could not be traced. The 10,000 bags had been After further evid-uce was heard regarding verify the plaintiff's estimate of value at any sold under order of the Court and the proced, the brands of exhibits the case was adjourned. moment. They, did not do 80. The figure odged in Court pending the decision in this $95,0:10 was in fact adopted as the basis of action. The claimants said they wer - satitled to the contract, the Company insisting on the the proceeds of the s×l-, $25,500 nod the value of ! condition that the plaintiff should himself | the 4,000 bags, $9,800, a total of $3,300,- The insure for the balance $55,000. The Company Yau On Mariue and Fire Insurance Company | did not, as they might as experienced insurers of 3 Bonham Strand West asserted that; have done, put in worda to the effect the frm agreed to maintain the ralus that they did
not accept the plaintiff's of the security at an amount ere wding, estimate or valuation, which would have that of the onstanding bans. They claim pat the
on us on the plaintiff in
that they have the first charge on the flour event of loss of proving the actual insurance and neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants value of the ship reducing it an open policy. nor other of the parties have any interest And if, after these considerations had been therein antil these charges have been satis. duly weighed, I had any doubts left as to what | fied.
There WAS Dow due on that claim the intention of the Company really was; they $110,000 principal, 814,592 arrears of interest, vanish when I come to Ng San Kau's state- a total of $124,59% which less 14,362 received ment: "T.understood it to be that we should
on account left a balance of $1229 still take 40/95ths of $95,1.00" or as he immediately due. The Yan On firm pressed for a declara. changed it to "of the value of the ship." I | tion that they had the first charges on the regret that I cannot believe this introduction 7,000 bags of four in question and asked into his thoughts at that time of a matter which it is clear he had never thought of, and which was obviously the result of conference with his legal advisers. I am therefore of opinion that by
the
|
the plain-
for payment out of Court of $21,636 being proceeds of the sale of 10,000 bags and pay. meat by defendant of $98,593, as damage, being the difference between the said $120,23)
|
Mr. A. Harrison, manager of the Hongkong branch of the British American l'obscoɑ Co., stated that the Company has a godown at No. 6 Crogs Loe, Wauchai The keeper of this godown lead sines absconded
On February *th witness did not issue any order for four ༩༣༤༠༥ ༢f
Three Castle" cigarettes in favour of the 4.G.A. The four cases of “hree Castla cigarettes seized by the police form d part of a case of twelve which arrived here two or three yours ago. No part of that shipment had been sold and the twelve cases were still intact Witness hauded the in the Company's books. first defendant a delivery order for 100 cases of "-gyptian Delight" tobieco on the Hongkong Wharf and Godown Co, and told him to pass such order of the second defendant with instructions to transport the goods to West Point. The first da'endsut WA+
further instruct to fix a tim with the second for the burning of this tobacco, and that be was fu remain there nutil the tobacon was burned. Such brand- of tobaces were Anaver sold in South Chins or the Philippines i
by the Briti h American Pubice, Co, but were always destroyed. The first defendant returned
}
!
·
at pm
ou the evening of the day wh-u such instructions were issued, and said he had seen th tobacco burned, and a bili was duly presented
by the second defendan: for the cost of petroleum said to have been used in the baraing of the tobacco.
SHIPOWNERS AND CARGO.
THE QUESTION - RESPONSIBILITY, In the Tokyo Appeal Court on Feb. 20th wa8 heard an appeal filed by Masse«. Sib r Wolff & Co, No. Pi Yamashita-cho, Yokohama, against jalgment given by the Yokohama Dix trict Court in the civil case of Siber Wolff ceraus Baiter fi-ld and Swire, where the plaintiffs claimed Y1,540) as damages for short delivery nf cago imported by the vessels of the Ogwan Stes ship Co, Ltd., and of the China Matusi Steam Navigation Co., of which the defendants are the local representatives. The Yokohama District Court dismissed the claim on ground that insemach as the alleged shortagu resulted from a theft committed after the cargo was landed in the Customs compound, the de- fendants were under no obligation to make good the loss, as under British law they are exempt from the liability by virtue of the provision in- serted in the bill of lading.
the