June 8, 1908.]
HIS EXCELLENCE-It is better to postpone it until next meeting.
The COLONIAL SECRETARY—I endorse what Your Excellency has said. The clause is very important, and it would be a pity if the scheme ware jettisoned. Some compromise acceptable to all parties might be arrived at.
Consideration of the clause was accordingly deferred.
On clause 68,
The ATTORNEY GENERAL moved a new section so as to make consent by the Governor in Council necessary to applications for water closets.
The COLONIal Secretary said the reason for the amendment was that the Sanitary Board in defiance of the medical opinion con- sulted had decided to permit water closets in houses in Kowloon.
Carried,
Two sections in clause 51 providing that where the owner agreed to provide a scavenging lane without compensation the consent of the mortgagee or lessee was Lot needed were deleted. Hon. Mr. SLADE expressed the opinion that where an owner wished to rebuild his property he should be able to get back his scavenging lanes, if he desired, at the price that had been paid to him as compensation.
The DIRECTOR of PUBLIC WORKS said there was nothing in the Ordinance to prevent an owner retaining possession of the scavenging lane an his property, in which case the Government would pay no compensation for it, but if the Government did resume the lane and
pay for it he did not see why it should surrender the land at the price paid the value might have either appreciated or depreciated.
The point was not pressed. On clause 58,
Hon. Mr. STEWART moved to deduct from the 28 days' limit for the final return of plans by the Building Authority such time as was taken up through the plans being returned to the architects for amendment,
The amendment was allowed to stand over for further consideration.
On the amendment to clause 265 being reached.
HIS EXCELLENCY adjourned the Council until next Thursday.
FINANCE COMMITTEE.
A meeting of the Finance Committee was held after the Council, the Colonial teoretary presiding. The following vote was passed:
The Governor recommended the Council to rote a sum of six thousand Dollars ($6,000) in aid of the vote, Publio Works Extraordinary, Buildings, Land Office at Tai Po.
SUPREME COURT.
Monday, 1st June.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
(SIR FRANCIS PIGGOTT)
•
|
CLAIM AGAINST THE RUSS0-CHINESE BANK.
Li Yau Sam v. the Russo-Chinese Bank. This was a special jury action in which the plaintiff claimed $41.415 from the defendants, being money alleged to have been handed to defendants for transmission to Shanghai on behalf of the plaintiff. Mr. M. W. Slade, in structed by Mr. C. H. Beavis, appeared for the plaintiff, and Hon. Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C, instructed by Mr. Gedge, of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master, appeared for the defendants The special jury was ampanelled as follows; Mesars. D. W. Craddock (foreman), H. P. White, W. B. Walker, W. L. Carter, A. O'D. Gourdin, E. G. Barrett, C. H. Ros
Mr. G. P. Lammert was called but exempted by agreement between both parties.
The statement of claim set forth that the plaintiff was a banker residing at Nanking and carried on business at 179. Des Voeux Road, under the style of Yee Sun Yuen Kee. On 3rd January, 1907, the plaintiff requested the de- fendants, who carry on a banking business at
|
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT. Princes Buildings, Hongkong, to transmit the sum of taela 30,000 to Shanghai by telegraph and paid to the defendants 840,961,30 being the amount demanded by them. 'T'hey gave to the plaintiff a written acknowledgment of the receipt of the $40,961.30 but the defendants did not transmit said sum or any part thereof to Shanghai, and on the 24th January 1907, plain. tiff demanded repayment of the amount stated bat defendants had not repaid the sum. The plaintiff therefore interest thereon from the 24th January 1907 at claimed $40.961,30 and the rate of 8 per cent per annum until payment or judgment.
The defence was a denial of having been asked to transmit the money stated to Shanghai or having received the $40,961.89.
Mr. Slade in opening said that the plaintiff carried on business in many places in China and be had a branch in Hongkong which was maintained almost entirely for the purpose of receiving and transmitting money for the active working branches in this part of China, such as Csaton and Swatow, The business was a large one and there was transmitted to Shanghai chiefly by telegraphic transfer as much as three or four million taels a year. The practics of the firm was to obtain quotations from individual banks from day to day and to send by the bank which offered the cheapest rate. During the eighteen months prior to the transaction of 3rd January, 1907, the plaintiff transmitted over 80,000 taels through the defendant bank. Plaintiff's manager hore having received the money Would make in quiries from the various banks-of course dealing with the compradores-as to the rate of exchange. Mr. Slade then detailed how the manager used to interview the compradore of the defendant bank to ascertain the rate, and after it had been confirmed by the manager of the bank, obtain an offer in writing. At the time in question the same procedure was adopted as in the 30 or 40 previous transactions. Plain tiff's madager saw the dompradore of the defendant bank and arranged for the trans- mission of taels 20,000 at the rate of 73, the agreement being that he would bring the money to the bank next morning. On arrival at the bank next morning he arranged for
additional taels 10,000, but the rate quoted then was 731. The compradore wrote on a slip of paper the amount, the rate of exohange, and the sum of $41 deducted from the total, this being a return of part of his com- mission which the compradore was in the habit of giving to his Chinese customers. This was the practice of bank compradores, the commission allowed in this instance being 81 per $1,000. Having received the account, the manager went away and returned with the money, which he paid over and got his book chopped. He then telegraphed to Shanghai announcing that he had remitted the money, and he made the usual entries in his book. Three or four days afterwards he received a telegram from Shanghai complaining that the money had not been paid, and when he went round to the bank the compradore told him not to worry as such delays were not uncommon. Still the money was not paid and when he went to the bank again the compradore said the bank manager would write on the matter, There being no reply forthcoming, the manager placed the matter in the hands of a solicitor and when he wrote the Bank denied all knowledge of the matter. Shortly afterwards the compradore informed the plaintiff that he was Borry he had treated him badly, as he temporarily used the money, and had been surprised by the solicitors, letter. When pressed, the bank denied liability and a letter written by the compradore was sent to the manager of the plaintiff firm in which the writer admitted apropriating the money with full intention of repaying, but tightness of money preventing him from doing so at present. He would however raise several thousands from his friends and give promissory notes for the balance In flowery language he wrote of his not daring to show his face nor his eyes, and asking the plaintiff who belonged to a rich and noble family to consent to the arrangement which he proposed and lay up a store of good deeds. Plaintiff declined to have anything to do with this arrangement, and looked to the Bank for payment.
bad
Evidence was called and the case adjourned.
|
Tuesday, 2nd June.”
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
361
CLAIM AGAINST THE BUS80-CHINESE BANK The special jury action was continued in which Li Yau Sam claimed $41,415 from the Russo-China Bank being money alleged to have been handed to defendants for. bransmission to Shanghai on behalf of the plaintiff. Mr. M. W. Slade, instructed by and M. C. H. Beavis, appeared for the plaintiff, Hon. Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C., instructed by Mr. Gedge, of Mesars, Johnson, Stokes and Master, appeared for the defendants.
The special jury was constituted as follows; Messrs. D. W. Craddock (foreman), H. P. White, W B. Walker, W. L. Carter, A. O'D. Gourdin, E. G. Barrett, C. H. Boss.
There was no evidence called on behalf of the
defence.
Mr. Pollock addressed the jury, contending that the Bank not having received the money was not liable. If a compradore could bind his without consulting his employers it would be employer or his firm by entering into a contract
putting the compradore in the taipan's seat.
His Honour-You are putting it that there is a duty for him to go to the European head?
Mr. Pollock-If he wishes to make things absolutely safe he must do so.
Mr. Pollock submitted certain questions which he thought should be submitted to the jury, the chief of which was-Did the defendanta' compradore receive the money from the plain- tiff's agent and, if so, did he receive it for the benefit of the bank or for his own benefit?
|
Mr. Slade maintained that the money did go into the coffers of the bank. It was received by the person authorised to receive the money of the Bank. The questions he suggested were materially different to those of his friend. The first one was-Did the plaintiff's agent pay over to the bank the money stated for the purpose of its being transmitted to Shanghai? The second was also important-Did the plaintiff in making this payment follow the ordinary course of business between himself and the defendants ?
His Lordship in summing up said this was s oase with which he was sorry to say they were becoming too familiar. Two innocent parties come before the court: they have been defraud. ed by a scoundrel and both do their almost to recover their money. His Lordship again oriticised the compradore system. It was perfectly useful when the colony was founded
to establish business relations with the Chinese. Certainly it was a very ingenious system but it had led to certain things happening. It led to a false security on the part of taipans and he had not the slightest doubt that the system wanted a thorough revision. The system induced a false security on the part of the taipan and he was perfectly well aware that the guarantee did not cover the whole of the liability. The system induced a certain recklessness оп the part of the ChinesA buyer who knew he had no European principal to deal with and it pat en ormous power for harm by fraud into the hands of one Chinaman. At the close of his address he submitted the following questions to the jury: (1) Did the Bank in fact instruct the сот- pradore transact exchange business with Chinese customers in any other way
than by receiving special authority in each case to do so? (2) Was there such authority given in this 0180 ?
3- Did the Bank put the compradore in such a position that he could pretend to the plaintiff that he had the necessary authority to receive the money, and, if so, did the plaintiff believing he had that authority hand over the money to the compra dore in that belief?
His Lordship continued that he assumed the jary would answer the first two questions in the negative, but if they answered the third in the affirmative then their verdiet must be for plaintiff. If they answered it in the negative their ver diot must be for defendant.
Mr. Pollock asked that it be put on record that he submitted five questions,
His Lordship-I intimated that would be so, Mr. Pollock-And that Your Lordship refuses. His Lordship-Yes.
Mr. Pollook-I would refer your Lordship to a part of a former judgment of your Lordship, in which you said “it is clear that where a frau-