HOUSES TO LET.
TO LET
TO 19, BELILIOS TERRACE,
N°
* EILANDONAN,” No. 64, Mount Kelleti | Road. 5 Rooms, unfurnished, from 1st March, No. 1, NATHAN ROAD, Kowloon (No. 1, Fairview), from 1st February.
No. 2, DES VOUX VILLAS 61 PEAK (Unfurnished), and also No. 25, SHELLEY STREET.
No MOUNTAIN VIEW" PEAK ROOMS, suitable for Offices, or the First Floor of No. 3, Duddoll Street.
ROGATE," Austin Road, Kowloon, from
1st February, 1915
No. 62, Tag PEAK, No. 2, CAMERON VILLAS) Furnished.
"KIRKENDOA" Furnished, No 122, Plantation Road, Posk.
"BEACONSFIELD," Battery Path. No.59, THE PEAK (& CAMERON VILLAS),
Apply to LINSTEAD & DAVIS,
3rd Floor, Alexandra Enildings. Hongkong, 18th January, 1915. [43
TO LET.
FFICES is $1 GEORGE'S BUILDING, Second Floor, Overlooking Harbour, immediate possession,
Apply to
SHEWAN, TOMEB & Co. Hongkong, 3rd December, 1914. 139
TO" LET.
OUSES in CLIFTON GARDENS. Ho
Conduit Road.
1, HILL SIDE, 110, TE PRAK GUDOWNE, New Praya, Kennedy Toru. GODOWNS, at Wanchal Road, Apply, sto.,
THE BONGKONG LAND INVEST MENT AND AGENCY Co., Im. Hongkong, 1st January, 1915
г38
TO LET-AT THE PEAK.
TO. 2, STEWART TERRACE.
Furnished and newly done up. Apply H. E. POLLOCK,
Prince's Building. Hongkong, 20th January, 1915, 18
TO LET.
THE HONGKONG DAILY PRESS, SATURDAY, JANUARY 23′′r, 1915.
GREEN ISLAND CEMENT
CO. SUED.
SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT..
Judgment was delivered at the Supreme Court yesterday, by the Chief Justice (Sir Wm. Rees Davies, K.C.), in the case in which the Man Shing Leo firm, 10, Western Streel, sucd the Green Island Cement Company. The claim is for 33,813 for work done and material supplied by plaintiffs to the defendants' steamship Chingchow between September 11th and October 50th, 1913. erant
BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE.
SOLICITOR AND OFFICIAL RECEIVER.
balance of Tung Yik contract and the Man the plaintiff's evidence (which, as I have Shing Leo bill for extras, as the contract said, does not go to the material issue of time was overdue and penalties had been fact) us to his presence at the interview incurred, stating that they would have with Mr. Hobbs on the 11th December, to be considered by the dotendant Com will not in the light of the evidence pany. Well, then, the following facts were as a whole justify my rejecting his claim. established: that the Alan Shing Lee had I repeat what I stated at the hearing in fact a sub-contract with the Tung Yik, that the absence of Fung Cheung from that the Tang Yik whilet presenting bills the withese box was regrettable. If the for the balance due on their contract and plaintiff's story is true, Fung Cheung for lifebonts did not present a bill for could have corroborated it; but if it is not such extra work, and that the bill for such true, his evidence would certainly have extra work was presented in the name been very material to the defendant's case. has an entirely distinct business at as the admitted extra works for cabine is of the Man Shing Lee, which admittedly The plaintiff's claim succeeds in so far Western Street; and even assuming concerned, and also for the other work, Captain Arthur'e recollection to be correct, which the defendants admit to be outside that this bill was retually handed to him | the Tung Yik contract, he, the work on by Fung Cheung, it would seem unlikely the engineer's store, boys' room, mess-room Mr. Eldon Potter (instructed by Mr. if the work was, as alleged, the Tung and certain repairs to the Captain's rooin. Davidson, of Messrs. Hastings & Fast Vik's chat Fung Cheung, who was at the It was no part of the plaintiff's sub- ings) was for plaintiffs, and Mr. F. Cine presenting claims by the Tung Yik, contract, and it is admitted that he took would bo, a party to making the claim the order and executed the work, The Joukin instructed by Mr. Hung of for the Man Shing Lee, his sub-contractors, same remark, I think, applies to the replac Messrs. Dearon, Looker, Deacon & Hars and otherwise thaa in the name of the ing of the cabin, which was outside Tung ton) for defendants,
Tung. Tik Furthermore, the order for Xik's original contract. So much of the His lordship said:-Although there the skylight was admittedly given to the claim as is for work connected with the has been considerable amount of plaintiff personally and he presented a bill bath-room, etc., which formed part of evidenco takon in this Case, there for it, as I have already stated, in the name Tung Yik's contract, is disallowed. I give is, I think, only one issue of fact, of the Man Shing Leo and receipted it judgment for the plaintiff and direct a and that a simple one, to determine,in his own name, Wan Lee, with the Man reference to the Registrar to investigate It is admitted that Wan Lee, who is the Shing Low's chop affixed. The defendants the items in the claim accordingly with plaintiff firm, was instructed by the defen contend that if the skylight bill was passed instructions to call for all necessary dants' representatives to carry out a portion of the extra work which forms the the bill for extras have been passed like
ne work given to plaintif why should not vouchers. There will be liberty to apply. Mr. Jenkin applied for a stay of execu subject of the claim. The question is wise: The answer I believe is what I have tion for 14 days, which was granted. whether he was instructed in the capacity already stated, that the defendant's repre of the foreman or employee of the Tung sentatives did in fact under a mistaken Yik firm or not. If aye, the action fails; assumption believe that the order for if no, the plaintiff succeeds on, at any extras was being given to the plaintifas rale, a portion of his claim.
the employed of the Tung Yik, and this is The facts are shortly as follows:-consistent with the defendants' contention On 23rd July, 1913, the defendant Com that no price was fixed for the extra work, pany accepted a tender of the Tung Yik as it was regarded in part as work firm to do certain specified work on their incidental to the Tang Yik contract. steamship Chingchor, the work was begun As to the ceiling incident, hath Captain on the next day, and in September follow Arthur and Mr. Shields state that plain- ing the Tung Yik gave a sub-contract toiff objected to put back certain ceiling as the plaintiff firm for the unfinished would put him te expense," and it. under the sub-contract was begun on the protest is inconsistent with plaintiff hav portion of the specified work. The work was contended by defendants that this 10th September, and the next day or ing an independent contract, and that, thereabouts Captain Arthur, the defen therefore, he protested as a foreman of dants' superintendent, gave Wan Lee, the the Tung Yik; but I think it is equally manager of the plaintiff firm, certain oral consistent with his being interested under instructions as to extra work to be carried his sub-contract, which we know existed, out to the ship, which is admittedly out and this suggestion was acquiesced in by side the Tung Yik contract, and a plan the two witnesses nsmed. Then, was afterwards given to Wan Lee by the as to the interview of the 11th Decem master of the vessel. Captain Doyle, which bor, Mr. Hobbs, an nasistant in the shows some of the extra work contem employ of defendant Company, stated that plated. This plan, it seems, had been pre he saw the plaintiff with Fung Cheung pared for the work in the Tung Yik a number of times after the work was contract. Wan Lee as a fact states that he completed and the ship had sailed, but informed Captain Arthur of his sub-con never alone, and that his conversation was tract from the Tung Yik, but this is wholly always with Fung Cheung, that he had denied by Captain Arthur, who says that no conversation with plaintiff, and that, Fung Cheung, a partner in the Tung Yik, on 11th December, he saw both men when
Mr. Mason, appearing for various who had been hitherto superintending the the letter of that date was drawn up in creditors, then made an application for work, introduced Wan Lee as the foreman the presence of both of them, read over to costs in connection with the adjudication. of the Tung Yik, who would do the work both, and signed by Tung Yik agreeing In pursuance of the rules of bankruptcy very much better." There had as a fact to waive his bill for extra work in con- Various interviews took place between price for his work, notwithstanding his proofs of debt, on the morning of been complaints as to delay in the work sideration of his being paid the contract in that Colony on November 6th, he had Captain Arthur, and Wan Lee and between penalties incurred by delay in completion. the meeting, but these were refused by the Captain Doyle and Wan Lee, And they both The plaintiff denies that he was present Official Receiver on the ground that they state that they always regarded Wan Lee at all at this interview and says he was
were not filed within the specified time. as the employee of the Tung Yik, invari outside the room and took no part in the With regard to that, he would like to ably addressing him as Tong Yik No. 1"
conversation. I should add that Mr. point out that there was no limitation of. to which Wan Lee took no objection. In Hobbs in his evidence contradicted him time in the Colony, and the rule was that fact they both state that they know self as to whether the bill for extras was
no creditor could vote unless he previous nothing of the existence of the Man Shing handed to him by the plaintiff or by Fungy proved his debt. Lee firm in regard to the work until shortly Cheung. At first he stated that the plain- before the action was brought. Whether tift did so and he subsequently correcte Wan Loo is telling the truth or not when him, and said the Tung Yik mau did so, he says he disclosed the name of his firm and here I think the answer to Inter- and of his sub-contract, I entirely accept rogatory 8 is important, which reads the evidence of both Captain Arthur and "A bill was presented to Mesra, Shewan, Captain Doyle that they in fact regarded Tomes & Co. by a person who stated that him as the employee of the Tang Yik and he was representing the plaintiff, and addressed him as such He was as a fact whose name. was unknown to Messrs. carrying on work which had been Showani, Tomes & Con entrusted to the Tung Yik, and I think Tomes & Co. repudiated and returned the Messrs Shewan, it unlikely that a Chinese contractor bill and have no copy thereof; but they would trouble under the circumstances to think that its amount was the same, or resent the misnomers put on him. In the approximately the same, as the amount light, however, of the defence on which claimed in the writ. This, I think, must, the defendants rels, the assumption that properly be regarded as an admission that these gentlemen mistook the plaintiff for an employee of the Tung Vik will not an unknown man, not Fung Cheung, must avail them if in fact he was not as it is admitted that other bill of the have presented a bill similar to the claim, In addition to the so-called extra work Tung Yik firm for cxtras was presented VILLAS," the plaintiff was instructed by Captain by Fung Cheung. This goes in support Arthur to make certain skylight doors of the plaintiff's allegation that he did Captain Arthur alleges this work was also personally present Shewan, Tours & Co. SPANISH DOMINICAN
· PROCURATION.
given to him as " Tung Vik No. 1," which with this bill prior to the interview of 11th is denied by the plaintiff. Hongkong, 14th January, 1915.
A separate December. I am asked by the plaintiff's payment of $160 was, however, made to counsel to find as a fact that Mr. Hobbs is
Can
be
CONDUIT ROAD-Repaired, NRepainted and thoroughly Renovated, Comploto installation of Electric Tights, including Fittings.
ocoupled Immediately.
RICHMOND HOUSE, 11, Robinson Road -Now under repair. Can be renovated and repainted to suit tenant's taste. Carton and
For further particulars apply to
H. M. H. NEMAZEE,
10, Des Var Road. Hongkong, Srd November, 1914, [47
Tennis Court.
Kowloon.
TO LET.
"
HOUSE—i—Knutsford Terrace, APFRE HONGKONG LAND INVEST
MENT & AGENCY CO., LTD, Hongkong, 4th January, 1915.
[45
TO LET
ALEXANDREA
CONVENIENT
IVERY
BUILDINGS, OFFICES and ROOMS. Including Fine Commodious
SECRETARY, Apply
A. S. WATSON & Co., LTD. Hongkong, 23rd October, 1914,
Baite.
QUEEN'S BUILDING,
[36
NO LET, the South-West portion of the FIRST FLOOR, including Treasury on Ground Floor, lately in occupation of the German Bauk.
GODOWN, No. 9, Ice Hours Street. Apply to
THE HONGKONG LAND INVEST MENT & AGENOT CO, LTZ Hongkong, Lat January, 1915, - 195
TO LET.
#LYEEMOON
Kowloos, Apply 10-
No
F
TO BE LET.
[157
IRST FLOOR of 11, Queen's Road
Contral, from 1st March next, occupied by the Telephone Company.
Apply to
THE MERCANTILE BANK OF
INDIA, LTD. Hongkong, th December, 1914.
[08
When the case of Kwan Yik and Kwan Mow was called on at the Bankruptcy Court yesterday, the application being for adjudication, the Oficial Receiver mentioned that ecveral meetings of credi tors had been held, and at one the question was raised of the admission of certain proofs of debt. He had taken the opinion of Counsel on the question, and finally they were admitted. Ai another meeting it was agreed that the two firms should be adjudged bankrupt, a trustca was appointed, and he now asked for adjudication, and the confirmation of the appointment of the trustee The Official Receiver added that the two firms were rice firms which went bankrupt owing to the defalcations of our Man Chin Lee,
The Cniel Justice-Were your proofa rejected!
INTIMATIONS
LANE
CRAWFORD & Co.
0
NOW PROCEEDING
STOCKTAKING
SALE
FOR TWO WEEKS ONLY.
WE HAVE MADE LARGER REDUCTIONS THAN IS OUR
USUAL CUSTOM FOR THIS SALE TO ENSURE A
SPEEDY CLEARANCE.
LADIES' DEPT.
SPECIAL
REDUCTIONS
GENUINE
BARGAINS
IN
GENTLEMEN'S
LANE,
IN
HATS COSTUMES
SKIRTS. COATS.
GLOVES AND HOSIERY.
OVERCOATS, SHIRTS
UNDERWEAR. WAISTCOATS
BOOTS AND SHOES,
& CO.
[22
CRAWFORD
REMINGTON JUNIOR.
“A LONG FELT WANT SUPPLIED AT LAST.”
PORTABLE TYPEWRITER FOR TRAVELLERS,
THE REMINGTON JUNIOR."
SMALL RETAILERS DOCTORS, OLERGYMEN, AND OTHER PROFESSIONAL MEN, Ero., Erc; SPECIAL FEATURES: Simplicity, Compsefnere, Durability, Fortability. Weight 16
s., in leather travelling care 21 Ite The Remington "JUNIOR" is Typewriter of true Hemington quality, but is smaller, lighter and more compact and portable than the Standard Remingtou Model It embodies the latest Remington ideas in Remington construction, visible writing, back spacer, antematic ribbon movement, improved paper feed, and release, etc., eta
It is swift and essy, does beautiful work and is so simple in construction that Ite skilled operation is quickly learsed by anybody. No lessons needed. Though just as well made as any of the regular models, its price is only about half of the Standard Models,
Mr. Mason-Ye, my lord. My clients were refused leave to vote at the first: meeting and when the matter came before Mr. Justics Compertz, who was then acting Chief Justice, he said that be did not think vas Official Receiver had the right to refuse the e proofs. Mr. Mason for there was no time specified. The added that the Ordinance supported him, Ordinance simply said that a creditur could not vote unless he had previously proved his debt. In this case, the proofs were subsequently passed, the first meet ing, at which his proofs were refused, was It is bullt for the non-user, for the immense army of people who need a Typewriter and annulled, and be was now asking for his save lalways seeded one, but who would not get the Standard Models because their requirements 80 in and vote at that meeting, but his costs. Various creditors had a right to hrs diferent. In one word, it is built for people who will operate their own Machine.)
For further particulars,Jostalogues, etc., apply clients were thrown out by the Official Receiver. There was, he suggested, no
REMINGTON TYPEWRITER CO. authority in that Colony which gave the
(INCORFORATED), NEW YORK Official Receiver power to refuse the
HONGKONG AGENCY, QUEEN'S BUILDINGS, proofs as he had done in that case. Ho had no objection to adjudication, but merely wanted the costs for appearing
the plaintiff on 7th November in respect mistaken in asserting that plaintiff was when his proots were refused. of a bill rendered in the firm name present with Fung Cheung at the inter- The Official Receiver replied that when of the Man Shing Les and receipted view on 11th December, when the letter Mr. Mason came to his office on the mora now by Wan Lee on behalf of the firm was signed. This I cannot, do, and I ing of the meeting, at 10.15, he was not
Both Captain Arthur end Captain Doyle had several interviews with the entirely acquit Mr. Hobbs, as I have in, and he had instructed his clerk not plaintiff in the course of the work, always, already done Captain Arthur, of any want to accept proofs. The proofs put in by of hond fides in the matter. Mr. Hobbs Mr. Mason were not sworn, and they as they allego. regarding him as the bad seen the plaintiff, he asserts, many could not be submitted unless they were. employee of the Tung Yik. completion of the work there is an entire being or not being present at this inter- sworn to by the Official Receiver, but it After the times previously, and if the fact of his sworn. He admitted that they had to be conflict of evidence as to the interviews view was in my opinion germane to the took a long time, and when Mr. Mason between the representatives of defendant fadings in this action I certainly should called at the office he was unt in. Such firm, Fung Cheung, the Tung Yik con not be prepared to reject Mr. Hobbs debts had to be proved before the meeting tractor and the plaintiff. The latter evidence on the point. The interview and was held. swears that he had two interviews with letter of 11th December, can, however, I FLATS in Humphrey's Buildings and Captain Arthur alone early in November think, only be urged in proof that the adjudication, and on the point raised by The Chief Justice made the order of when he rendered his bill for extras, as plaintiff held himself out to be also for the skylight, but that he was paid employes of the Turg Yik, and as such tion should be made before Mr. Justics an Mr. Mason, he requested that the applica- for the latter and refused payment for acquiesced in the terms of the letter signed Gompertz in Chambers, the extras. Captain Arthur, on the other! by Tung Yik, and has consequently waived
"TO LET.
Nathan Road, Kowloon.
SIX-ROOMED HOUSE in Minden Row.
Mr. Crew romarked that that would also
FOUR-BOOMED HOUSES Kowloon hand, declares that no such interviews took any claim for the extra work. This, how apply to him, because he had an soplica- place in November; that he never had any over, Mr. Jenkin has persisted is not his tion to make which was similar to Mr. Apply to
Interview with the plaintiff alone, and case, as in fact it could not be from the Mason's. He was applying for costs on that the only visit paid him by the plain terms of the Statement of Defence. His the same footing. HUMPHREYS ESTATE & FINANCE tiff was in company with Fung Cheung position is that plaintiff had never had a
Co., L.,
The Chief Justice instructed Mr. Crew Alexander Buildings. Hongkong, 12th November,[1914,
TO LET
(105
O. 168, THE PYAE, "THE KENNELS. No. 169,
Apply
THE HONGKONG LAND INVEST MENT & AGENCY Co., LTD. Hongkong, Let January, 1915.
CLARKE'S B. 41. PILLS.
(54
THE HONGKONG VOLUNTEERS.
ORDERS BY LIEUT.-COL. A, CHAPMAN, VID.
OFFICERS TRAINING LECTURES. 1.—Wednesday, 27th January Stratony of the War-Lieut. Col. Moberly, D.9.0. This lecture will be given in St. Andrew's Hall at 5.45 p.m. and will be open ta N.C.0, of the H.K,V.C. and H.K.V.R. in uniform,
PARADES,
in December when four bills were pre-distinct contract at all for extras and that also to apply in Chambers. sented to him by Fung Cheung, when he the fact that he was present at the settle approved two for payment, returning the ment and took no part is strong evidence other two and that the entire conversa- of the non-existence of a distinct contract. tion was between himself and Furg To this Mr. Porter rejoins that there was Cheung, the plaintiff being present all the no necessity for the plaintiff to be present time and saying nothing. I shall refer as a mere employee, and if he was there to these alleged interviews later. These bills were strongly relied on in support to obtain his money then he was not there outside, as he alleges, as a sub-contractor of the plaintiff's opge; two of them are as an employee of Tung Yik. In view of in the name of Tung Yik for:(1) Life: the facts, which I have found to exist in boats, etc., receipted by Fung Cheung the plaintiff's favour, he, the existence with Tang Yik chop; (2) for balance of of the sub-contract, the arrival of the Tung Yik contract and receipted by Tang plaintiff on the work some months after A warranted cure for all Vik. The other two are in the name of the Tung Yik work began, the instructions acquired or constitutical Die Man Shing Lee (1) For skylight doors, admittedly given plaintiff personally as charges from the Urinary work which forms the subject of the to the extra work, the non-presentation
in either sor. These plaintiff's claim.
The bills, however, famous Pills also cure Gravel, appear to be in the same handwriting, and the Tung Yix of a bill for extra work, Fains in the Back and all the plaintiff says his bill was written in the distinct order as to the skylight, and Kidney Disorders. Free from English by a man who was not in his of his Man Shing Les bill, I cannot agree the rendering by the plaintiff in both cases. mercury Forty years' suc-employment or in that of the Tang, Yik that the plaintiff was given the extra work cess Sold by all Chemists Captain Arthur says that he did not, when as the employee of the Tung Yik, although and Storekeepers throughout the bills were presented, notice the head-
inge on them and that he handed back to him to bo so. The fact of my discrediting the defendants representatives belier d Fung Channg two of the bills, that for the
Organs
the world.
[00
2. Parades for Saturday, 23rd instant:
NO:
TIETAIS. 3.-Orderly Officer: Lieut. Wright.
Orderly Sergeant: Sergeant Crawford,, To furnish Guard to-night: No 1
Section Artillery and Left Section, M.G. Co..
E. G. STEWART, Cant, Adjutant, HK.V.O.
Hongkong, 30th November, 1914.
MITAND
ルービラクサ
BREWERY CO. Er Hond
NOTICE.
WE HAVE BEEN APPOINTED
SOLE AGENTS
TGO
IN HONGKONG AND SOUTH CHINA FOR
SAKURA BEER
BREWED AND BOTTLED BY
THE TEIKOKU BREWERY
CO. LTD..
MOJI. JAPAN.
This is an Excellent Beer
and moreover CHEAP.
PRICES, ETC., ON APPLICATION TO—-
DONNELLY & WHYTE,
Hongkong, 30th November, 1914.
WINE AND SPIRIT MERCHANTS.
TEL. 636,