Page
May 13, 1907.]
be argued by counsel unless the matter can be arranged.
ALLEGED BREACH OF CHARTER, His Lorship delivered his decision in the setion in which, Messrs. Carlowits and f ́o., merchants of 2, Connaught Road Central, Hoogkong, sued the Lombard Steamship Company, Ltd., of 23A, Great St. Helens in the City of London, for the recovery of $12,000, being damage sustained by plaintiffs by reason of the breach of charter party of the British steamship Salmanca entered into at Hongkong of 7th February 1902.
He allowed the claim for damages resulting from the breach of the cbarter on the ground that there was full notice to the owners that the charterers were going to enter into another charter which would result in profit to them- selves.
Wednesday, 8th May,
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION. BEFORE ME. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGs).
AN IMPLOYMENT CONTRACT.
The Indo-China Steam Navigation Company, Ld, sued T. Lancelot Wyndham, doctor of me- dicine, for the recovery of $1 000, being damages for breach of agreement dated June 13th, 1906. Mr. C. F. Dixon (of Messrs. Hastings and Hastings) appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. O. D. Thomson for the defendant.
on
The statement of claim set out that the plaintiffs were a limited liability company car- rying on business at Victoria, Hongkong, and the defendant was a doctor of medicins at pre- sent employed on board the Chinese steamship Hong Moh! The plaintiffs bad suffered dam. ages by reason of the defendant's breach of a cou- tract made by an agreement dated June 13th, 1906, whereby it was greed that the defend But should hold himself at the disposal of the plaintiffs to serve as dootor on board any of their fleet for a period of two years certain from the date of signing the steamer's articles in either Singapore, Hongkong and Shangbai, and should sign articles of agreement any steamer, and for any and every vorage aa and when required, at the salary of £15 per month, payable either in sterling or the equivalent of £15 per month. The defendant served the plaintiffs in the said capacity from August 2nd, 196, until February 8th, 1907, when, although the said period of two years had
without not expired, and
the
per- mission of the plaintiffs, he left their service and refused to continue therein Owing to bis refusal to work the Hop Sang could not proceed from Hongkong to Saigon ris Singapore, and went instead from Hongkong to Hongay. This resulted in a loss to the Company of 84.226.10, but to bring the action within summary jurisdiction they now claimed $1,000.
In his statement of defence the defendant admitted the agreement, but denied the breach. It was provided in the agreement that if at any time he should be incapable of fulfilling his duties as doctor on any steamer to which be might be appointed by reason of intemperance or wilful disobedience, or neglect to carry out the orders of the general managers, or of any officer appointed by them, the said agreement was to come to an end. The defendant had wilfully disobeyed and neglected to carry out the orders of the general managers.
His Lordship-Cannot we shorten matters? Mr. Thomson-With regard to this clause of the agreement?
His Lordship-I am perfectly clear on that subject: perfectly clear on the law that a man cannot profit by his own wrong. What
defence have you got?
Mr. Thomson-The agreement says that by intemperance etc, he is entitled to put an end to his agreement.
His Lordship-Because he will got drunk to-night they are not going to let him stop work to-morrow morning.
Mr. Thomson-This is an absurd agreement. His Lordship-I have not seen yours. Mr. Thomson-This is quite an unique one, His Lordship-In any case I'd never allow any defence of the kind. The man's a scoundrel on the face of it.
Mr. Thomson-For some particular reason this clanss must have been inserted.
|
|
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
His Lordship You'll never get me to hold 'that he can break his contract at his own sweet will.
Mr. Thomson-But the agreement 81ys so ! flis Lordship- I'm perfectly certain that the ship he is on now is paying him better wages.
Mr. Thomson-Apart from that—
His Lordship The man must be a blackguard anyway.
Mr. Thomson-He bas ground of complaint against the plaintiffs,
805
His Lordship -Do you know what a deer hound is ?—I bought this animal for hunting deer a Castle Peak.
Hist Lordship-It's a half bred chow. I should. think.
Mr. Dixon-It's a kangaroo dog.
His Lordship-An Australian. (To plaintiff) -What did you pay for it ?-$150.
Did the buyer give you a receipt?—He gave me a paper.
His Lordship-I should think he must have got drank that night
To cross-examination plaintiff denied that certain writing on a five or ten dollar bill was' a his, and Mr. Holborow asked him to write certain words that anpeared on the bill.
When plaintiff had complied and handed the
His Lordship-Very well, if you are going to fight this case I will adjourn it now. (To Mr. Diron)—You can easily prova what the pay is on the other ship. He must be getting better pay or he wouldn't have left the ship. He is a first class scoundrel, you can put it down.
Mr. Dixon-His present employers are Singa-bill to the solicitor, pore merchants.
Mr. Thomson-But supposing he got better
pay?
His Lordship-Argue that point if you like. Mr. Thomson-I say the plaintiffs cannot recover for his breach. For some reason or other they put that particular clause in.
His Lordship-This claus, so far as I can find, is in every shipping company's agreement; but it is certainly not meant that a man can break the agreement, although the form is not a very happy oue.
Mr. Tomson-It certainly says the agree. ment shall come to an end if he breaks i'.
His Lordship-I don't suppose he's worth a cent, is he?
Mr. Thomson-I don't suppose so, my Lord, £15 a month is not big pay, and a man can'. save much out of it.
Mr. Dixon- Uar object in bringing this action we have experienced the same is because treatment from other ships' doctors. We have no wish to be vindicativa in the matter, and ar: quite willing to take him back
Mr. Thomson-I have not seen him since the writ was issued.
His Lordship-You are not likely to see him, but you've got something out of him, I suppos? I think the case had better go in Friday work's list, and if Mr. Dixon can produce any evidence as to what payment he is getting now-
Mr. Dixon -I can get telegraphic com. munication from Singapore.
His Lordship-No, there must be agents here Mr. Dixon-And there is a chance they may not know.
His Lordship-I know they know. The case is adjourned until Friday week.
THE VALUE OF A DOG.
Chau Man-hou brought action against Fung Yau cheung to recover the sum of $20), value of a deer hound belonging to the plaintiff aud wrongfully taken away and disposed of by the defendant.
Mr. C. F. Dixon (of Messrs. Hastings and Hastings) appeared for the pl intiff. and Mr. A. Holborow (of Messrs. Deacon, Looker and Deacon; for the defendant.
Mr. Dixon, in outlining the cas", sail the
plaintiff had a deer hound which he bought from a soldier for $150.
Mr. Holborow asked-And you still say that is not your writing on the note ?—Yes.
Mr. Holborow-Will yon compare the two ? His Lordship-I'll compare the two if you don't mind; I'm the person to decide.
His lordship, after comparison, said he had not the slightest hesitation in saying that both writings were by the same man. (To plaintiff)
-По
you mean to say you did not write that; You'd better look at it again.
Plaintiff then admitted that one of the oharantera looted somathing lika his.
Did you write it, or did you not ?-It does not seem to me at if I wrote it on a bank note.
Did you write it anywere: I want you to say yes or no ?– A great deal of it is like my writing. Several tens of it is like mine.
Mr. Holborow-Is it yours?—I don't know whether it is or not.
His Lordship-Yon know you said it was not to begin with !—W»ll, I say so now.
Well, what do you ranan, yes or no? -It is not my writing, but it is very much like it,
Did you write it ?—No.
Tong Chan tim was next called, and said he gave his master's dog to the defendant at the
request of ons Fang Shun-kam.
His Lordship-That finishes the case. On this witness's evidence you are suing the wrong
man.
Mr. Dizon~I don't think so, my Lord; we handed the dog to him,
His Lordship-At the request of another
man.
Mr. Dixon-But he promised to return it, and did not do so.
His Lordship Sitting here as a jury, have not the slightest hesitation in saying you To the first place I don't have got no case. believe the plaintiff. He was certainly, not nosking the truth when he said that was not his writing on the bank note.
MARA.
Mr. Dixon-8-rely that does not affot the He discredits his evidence to a certain extant, but his not telling the truth
Botion for particular point cannot affoot an damages for wrongfully detaining a dog.
on A
His Lordship-I am going on the second witness's evidenos. There will be judgment for defendant and costs. If he brings another notion he had better make the price of his dog a little loss, as an Australian “dingo" is
His Lordship - Lucky soldier! Proceeding. Mr. Dixon said his client paid $150 on December 6th. In the middle of Jaworth about $5. nuary he went to Canton and left his deer hound in charge of the fokis at his shop. When he returned from Cauton about the end of January he found his dog missing, and on making inqui
ries learned that the defendant had been to his shop while he was away, represented to the fokis that he wished to show the dog to a Mr. Tiefe bacher, of Messrs. Meyerink and to., with a view to his buying it. The plaintiff had no intention of x-lling the dor, but his fokis, knowing nothing about it, allowed the defea- dant to take it away on the assurance that he He did not would bring it back next day. however, and plaintiff had not seen the dog since. Correspondance then passed between the plaintiff and Mr. Tiefenbacher, from which it appeared that the dog went mad and was des troyed. The dog was certainly not mad when it left plaintiff's shop, sad $200 was the value he pat upon it.
His Lordsbip-I're never seen a deer hound in this Colony. I suppose it is about a half breed, and worth »bout $5,
Mr. Dizon-This was a valuable dog, my Lord.
called. Plaintiff was
|
Thursday, May 9th.
IN BANKRUPTCY.
BEFORE SIR FRANCIS Piggott (CHIEF JUSTICE).
APPLICATION FOR DEBTOR'N RELEASE. Re the San Chouag Firm èz parte the dubtor. Mr. P. W. Goldring (of Memrs. Goldring and Barlow) moved on behalf of pae, Lo Ming, for his rplesse from Victoris Jail. He stated that in November last a similar application was made for this man's release. The debtor was, at the time of making application for his receiving order, in jail under exsontion for a civil debt. His Lordship considered since November that there were not sufficient grounds for releasing him.
His Lordship-Way did I refuse ? Mr. Goldring-I can't tell you, my Lord. Mr. Harston-I think I can tell you, my Lord.
His Lordship---What are the grounds now ? ·