!
&
His Lordship-The defendant could break! the agreement at any time by wilful disobedience or by getting drunk.
Mr. Thomson-Yes, the plaintiffs entered into the agreement containing that clanse with their eyes open. and it is not now for them to say that this clause does not mean what it says
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
·
His Lordship-You don't mean to say that any employers are going to give that man an agreemont after breaking this one.
(July 8, 1907. sustained by their steam launch Hoi Po in consequence of her having, on the night of October 21st, 1908, struck the; hulk Stanfield, was continued.
Mr. Thomson-Under the agreement with his present employers he may be discharged at Sir Henry Berkeley, K.C., instructed by Singapore at any
Johnson, moment without a single Mr. A. C. Jackson (of Messrs. cent, and have to find his way home.
Stokes and Master) appeared for the plaintiffs, Hi Lordship -Take this agreement: he and Mr. M. W. Slade (instructed by Mr. forfeits any benefit under it for what he has. K. Hall Brutton (of Messrs. Brutton and
Het) represented the defendants.
Mr. Thomson-Tha! is the point; he cannot now get his passage home.
His Lordship-Go on to the next clause. Mr. Thomson- Should the doctor be desir- : done. ous of leaving at the expiry of two years". The agreement is for two years, and he is perfectly entitled to leave after that time. Is he then desirous to return home he is to be provided with a first class pas-age. I don't think that clause affects the present action at all.
His Lordship-Disobedier en of orders: that is what it comes to.
Mr. Thomson- If the plaintiff's insert a clauso like this they must be bound by it. They can- not alter the agreement at their own option.
His Lordship-N«, but take the agreement as it stands.
Mr. Thomson-I submit on the agreement as itstand, the defeudant was perfectly entitled, legally to act as he did.
His Lordship-Tell me what the object in taking his evidence was?
Mr. Thomson-To show that he was justified, legally and morally, in taking the course he did. His Lordship--You call it inorally; immorally,
I should call it.
Mr. Thomson- When defendant joined the ship # Dr. Hartigau told him that he should get extra Last for embalming Chinamen.
His Lordship-Stop H iuomenf. Extra money for embalming Chiuamen! Do you suppose the Company are going to Fill China.
men for him to embalm?
Mr. Thomson--Dr. Hartigau fold the defen- dant-
His Lordship-That was if there was any. thing to embalm.
Mr. Thomson – Dr. Hartigan gave
the defendant to understand that there would be extra muney for embalming.
His Lordship-Tuat must be renting-ut on death
Mr. Thomson-Dr. Hartigau also told him that after about two months on these coast port voyages he would get on the Calcutta ruu.
Mr. Dixon- No.
Mr. Thomson-That is in the evidence, and it is not contradicted. None of these promises have been fullled. Then, of course, there is the question of his expenses when be was com pelled to remain ashore by order of the plaintiffs, His Lordship--You don't mean to suggest
that he was entitled to drinks?
Mr. Thomson-His evidence shows His Lordship - Drisks.
Mr. Thomson - His evidence shows that while compelled to remain on shore he had to pay for the carriage of his baggage to the hotel where he was staying. As the defendant. says in his evidence. You can't stay in an hotel all day doing nothing. The plaintiffs simply paid his board and lodgings, and his expenses on shore made a considerable hole in his C17 a a month
When the defendant was engaged by Dr. Hartigau nothing was said about his having to stay ashore. Then their is the question about bis trunk being detained by the plaintiffs for five months.
His Lordship-Surely you are not going to raise that point. If he has a claim against the Company he can sue them. Why is the point raised?
Mr. Thomson Suply to show that the plaintiffs have not treated the defendant as they should have. He wrote to Mr Gresson, then head of The fi-in, suggesting that he should make inquiries e inverting the missing frank, but he got no auswer from the firm, They ignored him. Then there is the mural justification.
His Lordship-dutting drunk is Bo ural justification for his b making his agreement
Mr. Thomsou - Ho has not broken it.
His Lordship-His evidence covers what I say. He has made a profit out of his own mis- deeds-uis own wrong.
Hi Lordship-Why should he? Then he raises the arcoment that he has made no profit by breasing bis agreement.
Mr. Thomson--He gets $200 a month under his present employers, but he may be dismissed at a moment's notice and have to find his own way bome, whereas had be remained with the plain- tiffs at the end of his ferm he was entitled to a passige home, so I submit he has got no advantage. The extra $50 a month does not compensate him.
! His Lordship-That's his lookout. On that agreement you want to say he was entitled to do as he liked.
1
'
Mr. Thomson-Perfectly entitled.
His Lordship-Then it must be a one-sided agreement.
Mr. Thomson-The defendant said he was quite satisfied with the agreement when he was
at home, but when he came out here he found
things differout. My argument is that the plain- tiffs must abide by their own agreement, entered into with their eyes open. It is not the first time they have had to employ a doctor, and I daresay it is not the first time they have had the experience of a doctor leaving their employ. They should have been more careful in drawing
up the agreement.
His Lordship--Would they have a one-sided agreement?
Mr. Thomson--If it is, it was drawn up by the plaintiffs. They cannot come to Court and say what they meant was so and ფი. They cannot interpolate words in their own favour as they are trying to do now. If the defendant cancels the agreement he forfeits the benefits under it.
Mr.
Dixon-The construction my friend wishes to put on the agreement is not a good one and one which I submit your Lordship caunot accept. The agreement must his read as a whole, and in it there are two constructions, one contrary to and une consistent with the general intention. The general inten- tion of the agreement undoubtedly
the į that
defendant should serve the plaintiffs for two years unless, in consequence of disobedience or intemperance, they should consider it necessary to discharge him.
Mr. Thomson-Ibat is another pint. I don't think the defendat t has made 8 p of. It i is perfec ly trus that he gets more money,
but
.
Was
His Lordship--They have not is harged him.
the
Mr. Dixon-No, but they wore to have the power to if be was disobedient or intemperate. The construction Mr. Thomson puts ou agreement is uGreasonable: the defendant must disobey or get drunk,
Mr. Thomson I object to that,
|
Mr Dixou--That is according to my friend's argument. Because the defendant breaks a clause of the agreement, your Lordship cannit accept the construction that the defendant is entitled to take advantage of his own wrong doing and have the agreement construed entirely iu his own favour just because it suits him to do so. Regarding the trunk, everything was done to discover it, but as a master of fact the defendant did not put it on hoard the launch went out by the plaintiffs. Certain reff setions are est upon Mr. Gressou regarding the letter written to him and said to be ignored by him. That was not se.
His Lordship gave julguent for the plaintiffs for $1,08 damages.
Friday, July 5th.
ÎN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
BEFORE SIR FRANCIS PIGGOTT (CHIEF JUSTICE).
CHI TO ND CO
I.
THE FUMIGATING AND DISINI ECTING BUREAU The hearing of this action in which the
Mr. Slade stated that the Stanfield was sunk on September 18th, and from that date antil October 9th it was not lighted in any way. The owner was under no obligation to light it, and nobody else did light it. On October 9th one of the officials from the Harbour Office He did so asked Mr. Gorham to light it and from that date took upon himself the How far that would lighting of the wreck. make him liable, however, was a question that On October might require some argument. 9th he gave directions to a man in his employ named Wright to see about the lighting of the bulk, and Wright sent and ordered a copper globe lamp of the best quality from Messrs. Bailey and Co, with which he lighted the wreck. He employed a sampзn owner and his wife at so much a day to trim and fill this lamp but unfortunately these people, who should bare been the first witnesses, bad witnesses would be disappeared, but other called to prove that the bulk was lighted. Evidence was called, and the case adjourned.
red
HONGKONG SANITARY BOARD.
held on July 2nd the Hon. Dr. Atkinson
At a special meeting of the Sanitary Board (president) presided. There were also present Ilon. Mr. W. Chatham, C.M.G., (Vice-presi- deut), Hon. Mr. A. W. Brewin, Registrar General, Dr. F. Clark, Medical Offloor of Health, Mr. A. Shelton Hooper, and Mr. G. A. Woodoock (secretary).
The meeting was called on the recommenda tion of the Medical Officer of Health whose miante read as follows:-I have the honour to recommend that a special meeting of the Board be called for Tuesday next to release the sheds at the Dairy Farm Company's premises which were declared infected last month. The farm is now entirely free of infection and the disin- fection of the sheds was commenced yesterday, and will be completed on Monday. The com pany are not able to utilize the milk of the animals which have recovered until the Board releases the premises, and the matter therefore can hardly be allowed to stand over until the regular meeting to be held on the 8th inst. The PRESIDENT moved that the premises be declared free of infection.
Mr. SHELT N-HOOPER seconded, and the motion was greed to.
The meeting then ended.
THE BANKRUPT DEBTOR.
840,000 BAIL.
On the 28th June it was recorded that a shopkeeper named Leung Ngan-pan appeared before Mr. G. N. Orme at the Police Court on a charge of obtaining goods to the value of $6,000 with intent to defraud, and was ad mitted to bail in the sum of $10,000. The same defendant again appeared "before the Court on June 28, and was charged with in- curring a debt of $10,281.97 and obtaining credit
means of by
frand other thau farther that bo did false pretences, and
debts incur
and liabilities amounting to credit under false $1,1252 and obtain pretences and by means of fraud.
Mr. H W. Looker (of Messrs. Deacon, Looker and Deacou) prosecuted, and Mr. P. W. Goldring (of Messrs Goldring and Barlow represented the defendaut.
Mr. Goldring applied for an adjournmout, and asked that moderate bail be fixed.
Mr. Looker pressed for heavy bail as the cas · was a seriou‹ one, and further th defendant had fied his statement of affi ́s in which his ameta were set ont at betwu-n 814,000 and $15,000.
His Worship granted an adjournment, and
be is liable to be disobarged at any moment by plaintiffs claimed 4,0-3, the amount of damage fixed the bail in the second case at $30,ʊU0. his present employers.