430
gage from Mr. A. J. David to Messrs. S. J. David and Co. the plaintiffs had no locus standi to sue the defendant in this case.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
A SOLDIER'S DEATH.
Rather a gruesome story was told at the inquiry held at the Magistracy on Dec. 10th into the circumstances attending the death of Lance Corpl. Smith, of the Buffs Regiment. Mr. J. H. Kemp conducted the inquiry and the jury was composed of Messrs. A. Sinclair, W. Hardwick, and L. V. Langstein.
His Lordship-Supposing this mortgage were foreclosed, and the money was recovered under it, would not that money belong to the firm?
Sir Henry Berkeley-It does not follow that because A. J. David is a partner in the firm that he is in accord with the rest of the partners for the enforcement of this security. They should
Detective-Sergt. Appleton spoke to being have made him a party to these proceedings. called to Murray Barracks on November 27th, We have made no assignment of any mortgage where, on the east side between the oil store and to 8. J. David and Co. The mortgagor is not the bread store, he found a large pool of blood. suing us, and nobody but he can sue us. Pro- He traced the blood marks to the door of ceeding, Counsel submitted that the plaintiffs the guard room, about 50 yards distant. could not sue on any covenant in the mortgage. He examined the ground, but found no He submitted further that the two documents signs of a struggle. The razor produced -the mortgage and the agreement-having was handed to witness by the adjutant. At the been made between different parties, could military mortuary witness saw the body of not be read together. In Chan Kee's case deceased, there being a large cut in the throat the mortgage and the agreement were be-and teeth-marks on one of his hands. A perusal tween the same parties. The first point he of deceased's correspondence threw no light on wished to raise was that the plaintiffs could not the subject. sue, and that the defendant was entitled to judg ment because of the manner in which the action was brought. His second point was that the mortgage, having been made to A. J. David, could not be regarded as incoporated into the agreement made with different persons, S. J. David and Co. In the proviso for redemption that, if the defendant did not pay, he lost his mortgaged property, there was not a single word which could be construed into an obliga tion compelling him to pay whether he wanted to save his property or not.
The hearing was adjourned.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE MR. H. H. J. GOMPERTZ (ACTING PUISNE JUDGE).
INCOMPLETE PARTICULARS.
Action was brought by Man Yeung Chi, a widow, against Mok Loi Pan, compradore, to recover $1,000 due under a promissory note made in favour of Man Iu, deceased. There was also a counter claim for $1212, of which $212 was waived in order to bring the claim within the summary jurisdiction of the Court.
Mr. C. F. Dixon of Messrs. Hastings and Hastings) appeared for the plaintiff. and Mr. G. E. Morrell (of Messrs. Goldring. Barlow and Morrell) represented the defendant.
On the claim judgment was entered for plaintiff with costs, and a stay of execution granted by consent.
Mr. Dixon stated that in connection with the counter claim he applied for further particulars regarding the items in the claim on the 27th of last month. His Lordship made an order for further particulars, but they had not yet been furnished.
Mr. Morrell My friend is not quite right I furnished him with particulars this morning.
Mr. Dixon-This is what he has given me, "Three sons at $4 each per month. I want dates.
His Lorship-Have you got the dates, Mr.
Morrell ?
Mr. Morrell-Not the exact dates. It is for .beard for seven years.
His Lordship-I think you will have to give the dates. That is a very important part.
Mr. Morrell-The three sons were boarded since April 7th, 1902. The eldest son left him in 1904; another left him in 1907; and the third was still living with him.
The hearing was adjourned.
Medical Officer Perry, R.A.M.C., stated that when he examined the body he found a large incisive wound about four and half inches long, about the larynx. It was a clean cut wound, land was deeper on the left side than the right. He also examined the body, and the only other marks of violence were teeth marks on the left wrist, the impression corresponding to the teeth of deceased. Witness was of opinion that this wound was self-inflicted.
Corporal Potter stated that he was returning to barracks when on getting near the oil stores he heard some-one gasping for breath. A mo. ment later a man rushed out and fell at witness's feet. Witness saw that he was bleeding from the throat, and almost immediately the man got up and rushed towards him. Witness got the stretcher, and deceased was taken away,
Private Smith, who was in the company of the previous witness, stated that while the stretcher was being fetched deceased rushed at him in such a manner that witness ran to the guard room. Deceased followed, and came up the steps part way, and then fell down. On an endeavour being made to get him into the stretcher a violent struggle took place. Deceased was well liked by every one.
Another witness stated that near the place where he found the blood-stained razor he dis- covered a cap belonging to Private Marsh.
Mr. Kemp-I may say that the presence of Private Marsh's cap will be explained by a witness who cannot attend to-day, but who will be called at the next adjournment.
Witness added that deceased knew Private Marsh and was ou friendly terms with him, being in the band together.
to
In consequence of four witnesses being unable
attend, the inquiry was adjourned.
A BOND OR AN AGREEMENT?
A case of some importance to the mercantile community, came before Mr. Justice Braddell sitting in the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements recently, on appeal from the assess- ment of the Commissioner of Stamps. The question was whether an agreement of guarantee was to be stamped as a bond or merely as an agreement in writing. The Commissioner of Stamps assessed the stamp at $200 and Messrs. Guthrie & Co., Limited, being dissatisfied with such assessment, appealed to the Court.
Mr. J. F. Wreford appeared for Messrs. Guthrie & Co., Limited, and Mr. P. J. Sproule, Acting Solicitor-General, for the Commissioner of Stamps.
His Lordship held that, according the A Shanghai contemporary states that the action Heck v. Arnhold, Karberg and Co., definition in the Stamp Ordinance, a bond which was originated many months ago in the for the purposes of such Ordinance was not German Consular Court here, will be argued in only what is known to the law as a bo d. i.e., an the Appeal Court at Leipsic this month. The instrument under seal, but included any instru- action was brought by the plaintiff for recovery ment in writing for the payment of money with of damages against Messrs. Arnhold, Karberg a condition that the obligation shall be void if a and Co., for alleged wrongful dismissal, and, on specified act or condition is performed or account of the nature of the case, it created observed or is not performed or observed.
In the document in question there was no such much interest here. The defendants gave as one of their grounds for dismissal that the condition; it has evidently been carefully drawn plaintiff had refused to do work after five o'clock to make the liability thereunder a continuing in the evening, and in answer to this the plaintiff one; it was merely an agreement in writing to referred to the practice in British firms, where satisfy the statute of Frauds and, as such, was the closing hour was five o'clock. Judgment liable to a stamp of twenty-five cents. His was given for the defendants, and it is the appeal Lordship directed the Commissioner of Stamps to refund $199.75 and to pay the costs of the gainst this decision that is now being heard.
appeal
[December 12, 1908
THE STAMP ORDINANCE.
A PECULIAR SITUATION.
The case in which Messrs. H. Ruttonjes and Son were summoned for having failed to com. ply with the Stamp Ordinance, by not placing a stamp on a receipt for over $25, was mentioned at the Magistracy on Saturday. Mr. Wood hav- ing dismissed the summons, the Crown appealed against the decision, and the Supreme Court remitted the matter to the Magistrate in order to impose a fine. Defendants were not present when their names were called, and Mr. Wood (the Magistrate) asked if they had been served with a copy of the order.
Mr. Dennys, who conducted the case for the Crown, said-I don't think defendant was served with a copy personally, I believe it went to Mr. Goldring, but if he has not been served he can be served now and I therefore ask for an adjournment.
Mr. Goldring (whe watched the case on behalf of defendants):-There is no case to adjourn. The case was concluded at the previous hearing. There was nothing to bring Mr. Ruttonjee before the Court.
- Mr. Dennys-He got your Worship's note. Mr. Goldring.-The order under the Ordin- ance provides that defendant must be summoned again.
Mr. Dennys-I understand defendant has been summoned.
Mr. Goldring-No; he only got the letter. His Worship (to Mr. Goldring).-Can you give me any authority?
Mr. Goldring-The Ordinance in such appeal case refers to persons who are disatisfied with the decision of the Magistrate and not to the Crown.
His Worship-The defendant has not got a new summons but the letter informed him the case would be called on so that the order of the Supreme Court might be obeyed.
Mr. Goldring read the letter which asked Mr. Ruttonjes" kindly call" at the Magistracy that morning
Mr. Goldring-Immediately the case was dismissed at the previous hearing it was dis- posed of.
His Worship-There are no forms provided ? Mr. Goldring--No.
His Wordship-I am told to summons defen- dant on a form. I sent a notification which gave all the information required.
Mr. Goldring-Yes. But I submit he must be summoned on a proper form.
His Worship-There are no forms. Mr. Goldring-My contention is that the case is finished.
Mr. Dennys-If defendant has not been served with the order I would wish that he be so served and I ask for an adjournment so that he may be served.
His Worship--I don't think he is entitled to be served with the order. Defendant was in court and heard the order,
Mr. Goldring-Oh yes, he is. His Worship:-It bears the Registrar's signature.
His Worship-Can I hear evidence again? Mr.
be person cannot Goldring:-A summoned twice with respect to the same case.
The case was adjourned.
The case in which Messrs. H. Ruttonjee & Sou were summoned for an offence under the Stamp Ordinance came on at the Magistracy on Dec. 10th before Mr. J. R. Wood. Defendants since the last hearing had been summoned from. the Supreme Court. Mr. Dennys, from the Crown Solicitors' office, appeared for the prosecution and asked his Worship to impose a fine in respect of each of the three summonses. Worship inflicted a fine of $25 in respect of each proceeding, $75 in all.
His
is
Another old-established Shanghai firm being converted into a Limited Liability Com- pany under the popular Hongkong Ordinances. The firm of R. Lawrie Smith & Co., artistic decorators, complete household furnishers, general contractors and commission agents which has so long carried on a successful business at 28 Nanking Road, has been taken over by a limited liability company, with a capital of Tls. 100,000, in 2,000 shares of Tls. 50 each, only 1,500 of which are to be issued at present.