148
It would always remind her of the beginning of shorthand in Hongkong in which she took a special interest and sympathy because she had struggled through the beginning of it herself, and knew what B lot of difficulty and what industry and patience were necessary in order to get anywhere past that 60 word mark which she bad never passed. It was a long time since she had learned it, and she hoped that the boys would pat their know, ledge of shorthand to a better use than she had done. All she had done with hers was to utilise it a little for notes and for household receipts, The other day, having entered into a struggle with a Chinese washerman on the proper wash- ing of white flannel, she hunted up an old receipt which she had preserved and to her horror found that it was written in shorthand. (Laughter). She had the greatest difficulty in reading it. At last she deciphered something about putting something into cold water but what that something was she had the greatest difficulty in discovering. She looked and looked and ultimately found out that it was sassoline, written without the vowel points (Laughter), Continuing, Her Froellency boped that the boys would carry their shorthand through farther than she had done and that they would have no struggles over points. With hearty good wishes for their success she had great pleasure in accepting their charming present.
Three hearty cheers were given by the boys for Lady Lugard, and the proceedings terminated.
SUPREME COURT.
Tuesday, February 25th.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE SIR FRANCIS PIGGOTT (CHIEF JUSTICE).
CLAIM ON A BILL OF EXCHANGE.
Leung Sin-Hoy, trading as the Chin Fang Hoi Kee firm of Singapore, brought action against the Cheong Wing firm of 75, Bonham Strand, bankers, Wong Long-him of the same address, the Wing Tung Sam firm of 257. Des Voeux Road Central, merchants, the Wing Cheng firm of 129, Des Voeux Road West and Li Lan-nam, merchant, as the drawers of a bill of exchange for $10,000 dated January 7th, 1907, and drawn by the defendants upon the plain. tiffs, and payable to the order of the Nether- lands Indies Commercial Bank 21 days after sight, payment whereof was made by the plain.
tiff on the 8th February 1907 to the Nether, lands Indies Commercial Bank. Hon. Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C., instructed by Mr. R. F. C. Master (of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. M. W. Slade, instructed by Mr. P. Sydenham Dixon (of Mr. R. A. Harding's office) for the defendants.
The statement of claim read :-The plaintiff is a merchant trading as the Chia Foong Hoy Kee firm at No. 60, China Street, Singapore, in the Straits Settlements. The defendants, the Cheong Wing firm, are bankers carry- ing on business at No. 75, Bonham Strand, and the defendant, Wong Loong Him, is the managing partner of the Cheong Wing firm. The defendants-the Wing Tung Sun firm- are merchants carrying on business at No. 957, Des Voeux Road Central, and the defendant, Lai Ya-nang, is manag- ing partner. The defendants, the Wing Cheong firm, were autil recently carrying on busineRS &8
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
dants id not indemnify the plaintiff from loss or damage by reason of his so accepting the said bill and the plaintiff as acceptor of the bill was obliged to pay to the bank, the holders thereof, the amount of the bill. The defendants have not nor have any of them paid to the plaintiff the said sum of $10,000 or any part thereof, and the same is now due and owing by the defendants to the plaintiff together with interest from the 7th day of February, 1907, the date of the maturity of the bill. The plaintiff therefore claims:- Payment
the plaintiff of the by defendants to of $10,00 together with interest at the rate of eight per cent. per sanam from the 7th February until payment or judgment.
The statement of defence read :-
The defendants do not admit that the plaintiff trades as the Chin Foong Hoy Kee firm, at No. 60, China Street, Singapore, and they deny that they at any timer. queated the plaintiff to accept any bill of exchange for their accommodation. The
sam
defendants do not admit that the plaintiff accepted the bill of exchange aucd upon in this action, and deny that the said bill of exchange was accepted for their accommodation, or that the said bill of ex- change was an accommodation bill, and asy that the said bill of exchange was drawn by the defendants, the Wing Cheong firm, the Chin Foong Hoy Kee for value. The defendants drew the said bill of ex change as sureties to the Netherlands India Commercial Bank for the due payment of the said bill of exchange by the said Chia Foong Hoy Kee, or by the defendants, the Win Cheong firm, and Li Lai-nam, in the event of the said bill of exchange being dishonoured by the said Chia Foong Hoy Kee.
on
Evidence was called, and the case adjourned.
Wedne day, February 26th.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR MR. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE).
A CASE DISMISSED.
administrator of the estate of Tse Mai-loi to Tsang In-ting sued Tse Young-shi, as
recover $450 said to be due on a borrowing note.
Mr. Crowther Smith (of Messrs. Almada and Smith) who appeared for the plaintiff, asted permission to add the name of another defendant to the writ.
The defendant's solicitor, Mr. P. Sydenham Dixon (of Mr. R. A. Harding's office), objected.
He had nothing to do with the new defendant. His Lordship-I cannot allow this applica
tion.
You are importing another person altogether, and that person may not have been served.
Mr. Smith-He is connected with the sime borrowing note.
His Lordship-I cannot allow it; you most go on.
Mr. Smith-I am not prepared to go on. Mr. Dixon-Then the case must be struck out.
Mr. Smith-I would ask your Lordship for an adjournment
Mr. Dixon- I object to that. His Lordship (to Mr. Smith)—Are you going on against this man?
Mr. Smith-o, I am not prepared. His Lordship-The case is dismissed with costs.
You must take out another writ. A QUESTION OF PBTNERSHIP,
Action was brought by Cheng Ying-obeang
[March 2, 1908.
You were to receive $10 a month and at the end in consideration "something good of you lending him money? Was any amount agreed upon -No.
Didn't you finance this contract ?—No. Will you tell me what money you had to find?-If he had not enough money he borrowed from me.
As a matter of fact the defendant was to receive 830 a month as wages, and you were to rceive $10 a month as wages during the carrying out of this contract?—I don't know whether he had wages or not; it was his business.
Mr. J. C. Walker, manager of the Dairy Farm, said the defendant was introduced to him by the plaintiff.
Cross-examined--Witness had seen the de- fendant frequently at the Dairy Farm, and had seen him looking at the work.
Plaintiff may have taken an interest in the construction of the sheds.
Defendant told the Court the $10 a month received by plaintiff was for wages. T'hey undertook the work together, and both drew wages. Plaintiff was to supply the capital, and defendant was to do the work.
Judgment was for the defendant.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION,
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR FRANCIS PIGGOTT (CHIEF JUSTICE).
THE LIABILITY OF COMPRAD JETS. The Chief Justice delivered his reserved judgment in the action brought by Chan Koo against David Bassoon & Co., Ld. Mr. M. W. Slade, instrasted by Mr. C. D. Wilkinson (of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist) appeared for the plaintiff, and Hon. Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C., instructed by Mr. H. W. Looker (of Mesars, Deacon, Looker and Descon) for the defendant.
His Lordship said—I bave to deal in this case with a peculiarly difficult form of words used in this contract, which is ■ Compradore's Agreement, and which is composed of two facts, or rather constructed out of two other documents-the mortgage given to Messrs, cassoon by the compradore's security, and an agreem at between the same parties for the payment of $20,000 to complete the security. The compradore is a party to both dooam nta, his 80. and the terms and conditions of
to be derived from them. gagement The question now to be decided aros out of a special case in an action by the surety for
are
au account of what is due, if anything, by the compradore to the firm, sad for the reemp. tion of the mortgag», the compradore having ceased to act ia that capacity. And the plain- tiff demands that certain inquiries should be directed to rtain special classes of dealings, which may or may not have taken place, but in respect of which, if they did take plac», the plaintiff alleges that the compradore, and con. sequently be himsel', would not be liable. The question came up in Chambers, and I gavo a decision 00 the question of construction of the words to which I will pressatly allude. Bat there W$4 ■ stumbling block in the way of farther progress being mide with the question, because it seemed to me that there was bere in. volved a question of insurano, rather tusa of guarantee, and I therefore directed a re-arga. meat in Court, owing to the very great import a500 of the question; this re-argument usturally overed the whole ground, and I have ome af or a great deal of considerativa to a different It is provided ment already given in Chambera. that the compradors shall be liable for all dif- cie cies in the price of goods sold or agreed to be sold to Chinese “with or without the consent or knowledge of the compradors.” The question arises : Is be liable in respect of contracts entered into against the expressed desire” of the com. pradore? The argument on which I bised my decision in Chambers was this: The above sea- tence amplified is "with or without the con- seat or with or without the knowledgd” of the with are The positive words compradore. superfluous, and are only introduced to re inforos the negative word 'without,' and therefore the sentence may be read 'without the consent or with at the knowledge' of the compradore, In other words, his consent is
merchants, at No. 129, Des Voeux Road West against Lau Fuk to recover $917 50 dae for opinion from that expressed in the short judg.
and the defendant, Li Lai-nam, was until re- cently the managing partner of the defendants, the Wing Cheong firm. The defen·lants, the Wing Cheong firm, hare recently ceased busi- ness, and the d-fendant, Li Lai-nam, has recently absconded from the Colony. Од
or
about the 7th January, 1907, the de- fendants requested the plaintiff to accept for the defendants' accommodation a bill of 6x- change for $10,000 which was drawn by the de. fendants on the plaintiff and payable at 21 days after sight in favour of the Netherlands India Commercial Bank at Singapore, and implied ly promised to indemnify the plaintiff from any loss or damage by reason of his so accepting he said bill of exchange. The plaintiff accordingly accepted the said bill for the defendants' accommodation.
money lent. Mr. G. E Morrell (of Mussra. Goldring, Barlow and Morrell) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. E. J. Grist (of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist) for the defendant.
Plaintiff told the Court that be introduosd the defendant to the manager of the Dairy Farm Co., and as a result the defendant obtaine ( a contract to build so e cowsheds Plaintiff advanced the defendant monies from time to
time, and was now claiming repayment.
In oross-examination plaintiff said he was not promised to give him $10 a month, and a partner in the Cai Tseng shop. Lea Fak
som thing good" when the work was finished.
Was he giving you $10 a month for life, & sort of annuity?-No, from the time the work
The defen- was started until its completion.