106
to entertain such an application, I must also have jurisdiction to enforce the acquisition and retention of this property on the application of the trustee, for the question to be decided is pre- oisely the same in both cases: is this business the bankrupt's property, or has he made a valid assignment of it to the person who alleges that he is the true owner? And if the right of the trustee is challenged in any other way, as in this case, by the person alleging himself to be the owner, setting up his right, by proclaiming its existence in Court or in any other way which * would prevent the trustee acting without bringing the question before the Court, it is inevitable that I must have jurisdiction to decide the question of right involved, because it is precisely the same as in the simpler cases I have supposed. I therefore am of opinion that I have jurisdiction to entertain this motion. One thing further should be said: that even supposing the argument on which
is my opinion is based wrong, I very strongly of opinion that Mr. Marican is not a stranger to the bankruptcy. The facts are simply these: the assignment was made on 2nd November, the petition in bankruptcy was filed on the 3rd, and the only assets are the proceeds of the sale the purchase price $400 a month for a certain period. It would require a very great deal to convince me that the purchase was not made by Marican with a view to bankruptcy proceedings, and still more to induce me to hold that this did not amount to a submission to the Bankruptcy Court sufficient to give jurisdiction to deal with the assignment, The preliminary objection being decided in favour of the petitioning creditor, he must have the costs of the day in any event when the costs of the motion come to taxation.
|-
am
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
•
THE HARBOUR MASTER AND DEBASED COINAGE,
A TRAMWAY EPISODE.
Interesting summons cases came on for hear- ing before Mr. J. H. Komp at the Magistracy on the 2nd inst. In one the Harbour Master proceeded against the motorman of tramcar 28 for alleged assault, and in the other the Tram- way o. summoned the Harbour Master for obstruction.
Mr. J. Gray Scott, manager of the Tramway Co., drew the attention of the Court to an error in the summons taken out by the complainant, but remarked that he had the right defendant present. The complainant in the case, he re- marked, had not a dopted 811 attitude that encouraged them to assist him.
His Worship decided to take the charge of assault first, and after a little delay the motor man, Ho Kwong, appeared in Court.
Commander Basil R. H. Taylor, R.N., Harbour Master, stated that at about 4:30 on the afternoon of January 25th he boarded tramcar No. 28 and handed the conductor a dollar bill. He was tendered eighty cents change in Chinese money, and a ten cent Hong- kong piece. omplainant refused to accept the Chinese money, demanding either Hongkong coinage or the return of his dollar. On arrival at his destination at the bottom of Icehouse Street he got out of the car, and the conductor, who was still arguing with him, got out also, Witness again asked for change in Hongkong money, or the return of his dollar, but the con- ductor declined to give him either. This was in front of the car. They stood there for about a minute, and then the defendant started the car. Neither the defendant nor the conductor had any number visible, so that probably accounted for the error in the summons mentioned by Mr. Scott.
APPLICATION TO WITHDRAW PETITION. Re Luk Lai Cho ex parte Lo Chan. Mr. Leo d'Almada e Castro (of Messrs. Gold. ring, Barlow and Morrell), who appeared for the petitioning creditor, stated that, since the His Worship-Supposing the conductor had petition had been served on the debtor, arrange-given you back the dollar?-I had one ten ments had been made between the debtor and cent piece in my pocket which I could creditor for a settlement of the debt. He there have given him. fore asked his Lordship to allow the petition to be withdrawIL.
+
His Lordship-What sort of arrangements Pr Mr. Almada-I understand the creditor has been paid.
His Lordship-What about the other creditor? Mr. Almada-No other creditors have filled in proofs. No receiving order has been made yet.
His Lordship-The petition has not yet been heard?
Mr. Almada--No.
His Lordship-I have no jurisdiction.
A MISSING DEBTOR.
Re Stella Brumfield, ex parte the debtor Mr. O. D. Thomson, who represented the debtor, applied for adjudication. There was an affidavit by Mr. Wakeman on the file stating that he was present at a meeting of creditors when a resolution was passed that the debtor should be adjudged bankrupt. To-day was the day appointed for the public examination, but the debtor had gone to Shanghai.
His Lordship-That was very wrongful. Mr. Thomson-I had a letter from her giving her reasons. She said she had no money to live
on.
Ehe ought to have stayed.
His Lordship-Let the public examination stand over.
Mr. Thomson-That can stand over, but I don't see why the adjudication should.
His Lordship I will leave that in the hands of the Official Receiver. He can decide what
action shall be taken.
A PERPETUAL MOTION.
Re Tsang King. When this case was mentioned Mr. Holborow (of Messrs. Deacon, Looker and Deacon) applied for another extension of time before the motion was, heard.
Mr. Harston agreed, remarking that it was necessary
His Lordship-This is a sort of perpetual motion. What time do you ask?
Mr. Holborow-Three weeks. His Lordship-Better take a month.
Mr. J. H, Scott head of the firm, of Messrs Butterfield and Swire, left Shanghai on the 30th ult. for Hankow en route to Peking.
I
He didn't ask you for ten cents, did he ?—No. Did you tell him that if he gave back the dollar you would give him ten cents?-No.
you
Don't think he would have returned the dollar if you had offered him ten cents ?-I suppose ho would have, but I was in a tremendous hurry on the occasion.
But the quickest way would have been to have given the ten cents, wouldn't it?-I suppose it would.
Did you go in front of the cat purposely?
Yes.
The weak point in your case is that conductors are not obliged to give change-This man offered it to me, and he should have given me proper change.
The motorman was then called, and declared that when the complainant stopped his car he asked him to sign his name. The Harbour Master would not sign, so the witness got back on his car. Complainant continued to stand in front, so the motorman sounded the gong to start the car. Even when he sounded the
gong complainant did not move, so he again got out of the car, handed the Commander a way bill and pencil, and again asked him to sign his
name.
Complainant pushed his hand away and refused to sign, and refused a third time when asked. Witness told him to take the ninety cents to the Tramway Company and get it changed there. Complainant continued to stand some three or four feet in front of the car, so witness started the car at one point. Com- plainant pushed at the head of the car with his hands. Witness again sounded the gong, and then complainant stood to one side, but held on to the car.
Commander Taylor said the first part of this story related to the conductor. He could not remember anything being said about taking the ninety cents to the Company for change.
His Worship thought the complainant had no right to stop the car, therefore the starting of
of the car, which would otherwise have been an assault, was no assault. The charge would be dismissed.
The summons against the Harbour Master for obstruction was then mentioned.
His Worship (to Mr. Scott)-If you want to go on, I will go on with it.
[February 6, 1909.
Mr. Scott said the position was that the con- ductor did not specify the amount of the In
fare. He simply said "Fare please," and in this case if the fare had been tendered there would have been no trouble. Trouble like this did occur at times, but he had never known a conductor to refuse to return a dollar. The defendant was asked to write his name on the way bill.
The conductor of car 28 was then called, and deposed to receiving a dollar bank note from the defendant. He returned as change eighty cents in Chinese money and a Hongkong ten cent piece. Defendant said he did not want Chinese money and asked witness to change it. The conductor told him to take the ninety cents to the company and get change there. Defendant then put the ninety cents on the shelf of the car, and witness went to the rear. He was not asked for the dollar again. Later witness sounded the bell for the motorman to start the car, but as it did not start he went to the front to see what was the matter. Seeing the defen- dant standing in front of the car he handed him a way bill and asked him to sign it, but the defendant refused.
Mr. Scott explained that he had written to the defendant telling him that the ninety cents were at his disposal when he liked to send for them. He then put the following questions to the witness through the ourt:
Did you have your cap and badge number on P-Yes.
}
Do you know if the motorman had his cap and badge number on ?-Yes.
By Commander Taylor:
Had either of you caps on at the time?-Yes, we were on duty, and it is the custom to wear caps on duty.
Did you, as a matter of fact, have your caps on P-Yes.
The motorman was again called to the stand, and gave evidence similar to that adduced in the
first case.
He was then questioned by Mr. Scott.
How long was the car delayed P-About four or five minutes.
Are you quite sure that the defendant asked the conductor to return his dollar note ?-Yes.
When he asked for the note back did he tender ten cents in exchange ?-No.
Cross-examined by Commander Taylor: Did you see another car behind ?—Yes. How did you manage to see it if you were in front of your car? Did you see it through the car? I saw it when I was on the ground.
You had a hat on P-Yes.
I think you said I held on to the car while it was going?-At that time I stopped the car.
You said just now I put up my hands to stop the car? You put your hands on the front of it. Do you think I am stronger than the car P- I don't know about that.
John Ragoul, the tiger trainer at Harmston's Circus, was then called. He spoke to seeing the Harbour Master tender a Hongkong dollar to the conductor, and refuse to take the change tendered because it was Chinese money. The defendant got in front of the car and declined to allow it to proceed until he got his right
money.
Cross-examined by. Commander Taylor: Where were you sitting in the car?-Right in front.
Behind the driver ?—Yes.
Were you sitting next to me then? I was in the front seat.-You were on one side, I was on the other.
}
-
Mr. Scott informed the Court, that this incident, which resulted in of both parties, was as as it was to
him
the
otande
to
It
would not have occurred, however, had
not the defendant taken action to his mind unjustifiable action-against the motor. man of the tram. Mr. Scot asked his Worship to accept the statement that upon the Harbour Master alone rested, the responsibility for his position. He thought it was clearly proved that an obstruction was caused under clause 58 of Tramway Ordinance 10 of 1902. Anyone causing an obstruction of this nature was liable to the maximum penalty of $1,000, and in the event of the fine not being paid, to twelve months' imprisonment. He did not suggest that this penalty should be inflicted on the defendant, but he appealed to the Magistrate, in the event of his finding the case proven, to inflict a heavy penalty,
Page 10Page 11