· SUPREME COURT.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION,
(Befori Sty James Russell, Chief Justice, and a Special Fury,)
March 20th.
- A CLAIM OF $1,300 OF A PROMISSORY NOTE. This was a sult brought by John Minhinnett, a foreman in the Pablic Works Department, to recover $1.300, balance alleged to be dve on a joint promissory note for $6,500, from Mr. Robert Fraser-Smith,
1
Mr. Francis, QC,, instructed by Messrs. Denays and Mortop, was for the plaintiff; the defendant appeared in person.
The jurors were:-Messrs. E. Burnie, T, Howard, S. W., Coxon, H. Crawford, E. H.
· Melbya, A. O'D Gourdin and N. P. Dhalla.
Mr. Francis said this was an action for a joint and several promissory ante signed by Robert Fraser-Smith and John Francis Webber. Mr. Fraser-Smith was alone' sued in this action. The petition set out that on the 8th December, 1888, Robert Fraser-Smith, Editor and proprietor of the Hongkong Telegraph, and John Francis Webber, a solicitor of the colony, signed a joint promissory note by which they undertook to pay to John Minblanett, an overseer of works, five months after date, the sum of $6,500' with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum. Mr. Webber had never pald anything on this note, either as principal or interest. The defendant' had paid two sums, one of $zoo and one of $300, and some three months ago had paid, on judgment belog entered agaleat him, the sum of $5,674, leaving a balance of $1.300 'duo, with Interest from the date of issue of the writ. In bir answer the defendant admitted signing the promissory note, but stated that there was a collateral agreement made at the time, by which he was answerable for $5,000 and Mr. Webber for $1,500. He further stated that he had paid $500 and $300, far which he held receipts, and the amount mentioned in the petition on judgment against him. He further stated that Mr. Webber had paid the plaintiff a sum of $600 and that Leung Ayon had paid plaintiff on behalf of Mr. Wehher a sum of $700, and that nothing farther
THE HONGKONG TELEGRAPH, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 1891.
Mr. Franch-That amount wont to the credit of Interest that was overdue. There was never anything paid on account of principal.
|
count of what he was personally liable for and he | in the Chinese Customa, encloslag $50 to send would settle, but Minħinnett had never done so. It | to Wabber. You showed me this before we had was only when Webber had left the colony that declared war against each other. I arranged this action was commenced. Even when he about the re-transfer with Trang King of the received a letter from plaintiff's solicitors be had the promissory note by paying the money for it written asking for an account to be sent him
By the Court-When the fortnight was up and and he would pay it. An account was sent him the money was not paid into the O. B. C. I got but it was incorrect. The $800 paid was not the money from a Chinese bank and transferred credited to him at áll,
the note to Trang King. Afterwards I paid him the money and got the note re-transferred, ‚'
By the defendant-I received $500 Interest from you, but I was acting an go-between for Teang King. I had to pay $65 a month Interest to the Chinese bank for the money. I did get $300 from you through Webber, but not on the date of the receipt banded to me, 11th May 1889, and I also afterwards received $500 from you making $800 in all. I also racalved 85,140 and 6529 through the Court, making in all $6,464,35%. I never received anything from Webber on account of this note except the $800 mentioned. I did not receive $100 on the 1st February from Webber, I see the cheque handed to me which is one for groo from Webber. I remember now that I did receive that sum from him, bat' I know what t was for. I cannot say whether I received any money from Webber on the 8th March, 1889. The $ion received on the 1st February had nothing to do with the $6,500
the learned counsel is an absolute falsehood.
Mr. Fraser-Smith-The statement made by
His lordship-I don't think that is a proper expression to use with reference to the learned counsel.
Mr. Frand-Do not interrupt him, my lord; please let him ga on. He is only dyelag kim. self deeper and deeper la lles.
Mr. Fraser-Smith-I apologise to the Court learned counsel, for using an improper expression-not to the
|
don't
me
A writ was then issued and the matter came before for the whole amount. By signing the note Mr. There being no questions the Chairman moved Mr. Justice Fielding Clarke in Chambers. I Fraser-Smith and Webber had made themselves, the adoption of the report and accounts, an admitted at once owing $5,145 and offered to each and individually liable. There was nothing | submitted. pay it into Court, Judgment was entered against whatever which would support any polot of equity Mr. R. Lyall seconded, and the, molión was
to enable Mr. Fraser-Smith to get out of his carried unanimously. the agth August and I gave my solicitor cheque for the money. The next matter was in Kability. The only sims that Mr. Fraser-Smlib reference to the balance of interest and I had to had paid, leaving out of course what was pald
CONSULTING COMMITTEE. further $594 Leong Ayon afterwards came FLY A
Mr. William Legge proposed that Messrs. J.J. after the latue of the writ, were the two sups of to my office and told me he had paid Minhinnett $100 and $500. Minhinnett admitted receiving Keswick, St. C. Michaelsen, E. R. Beliflow money on behalf of Webber on this account. 1. these two suma and allowance had been made | F. A. Gomes and D. R. Sassoon be re-elected bis solicitor, Mr. Wilkinson, and be distinctly afterwards saw him in Canton in the presence of for them. On the zoth September Webber and members of the Consulting Committee. Mr. paid a sum of $600 and it had been endeavoured Taylor; acconded, and the motion was carried stated that be bad pald $700 on behalf of Webber.io make out that this sum was maid on behalf of Kam con. on account of this promissory note. If this this particular transaction of $6,500. If there
AUDITORS. matter could have stood over för three weeks, Į Į had been no oiker transactions between Webber bave every reason to belleve that Mr. Webber
Upon the motion of Mr. W. H. Gaskell, and Minhinnett and Webber had paid this $600 seconded by Mr. Taylor, Messra. F. Henderson. would be here, and I should have been able to to him, the jury would be perfectly justified in and T. Arnold were re-elected auditors for the prove conclusively that the money was paid to
curent year. Minhinnett on behalf of this note. It was only. because I was sick and unable to make the proper applications to your lordship or I feel certain the case would have been postponed.......... Cross-examined by Mr. Francis-I do not think I sent any answer to Messrs. Dennys and Morsop to their letter enclosing the account. I naked thent to state the amount I owed on the $5,000. If I did ant write to Mr. Mossop telling him I was ready to pay what I owed, I certainly told him so. I had the money to pay three times: over. I did not have to borrow the $5.000 from
impertinent. I got it through the Chartered Hank. Very probably 1 bad to overdraw my account to pay it.
An announcement by the Chairman to the effect that dividend warrants will be ready on Monday brought the proceedings to a close.
coming to the conclusion that it was paid on behalf of this transection. But the evidence was that there were other transactions between Wahber and Minhinnett pending at that time, and that there were other moneys due and that this $600 was paid on their account. The fact therefore that this money happened to be pald on a certain date carried the case no further. It "SCOTCH NIGHT': WITH 'PATEX. was abrand to argue, xa had been contunded, that Mr. Webber was Mr. Minhinrott's agent in'. the matter, because it was clearly shown that Mr. Webber was a principal in the matter. Mr. Fraser-Smith and Mr. Webber were both this amount, and he therefore asked the jury for
Over & quarter of a century has elapsed since the present, writer first had the pleasure of listening to Miss Whyteck, then in the heyday oratorio and concert-room contraltos, a univer»
it was on another note for $1,000, which I held. Mr. Chater and I consider the suggestion grossly. principals and bath were fadividually liable for of her youth and fame as the shining light of
The following evidence on behalf of the defendant was then called:———
Leung Ayon examined by the defendant, sald am a shipcbandier. I have been in Hong, kong for over twenty years. In June last 1 entered into business relations with Mr. Webber, There was a partnership talked about betworn us, but nothing was ever settled. I met you in the might have received other sums at later Shameen Hotel at Canton in August last. Mr.. dates but cannet state positively for the reason Wilkinson was present. I had borrowed $1,900 that I keep wo books at all-merely for things from Mr. Minhinnett in July last year on the | down on bits of paper. I calculate interest on security of an insurance policy. I did not pay Mr. loans by writing it off on the back of the debit Minblanets $700 on account of Mr. Webber, I note. paid $700 to Mr. Wotton on Webber's account.
At this juncture the witness began to give hir not until hard pressed by his fordship that he evidence in a very hesitating manner, and it was could be induced to give a decided answer.
Witness (continuing) said:—I may have told you and my solicitor that I had paid $700 on behalf of Mr. Webber. That was not correct. I never paid any $700 to Mr. Minhinnett on behalf of this promissory note. I never told you so when I met you in the Shameen Hotel. I have paid Webber money, I gave him altogether $1,300. I have a receipt for it. I do not know No. 3, Arsenal Street.
After thought and under pressure for a distinct answer witncan said: I went there on the arth June of last year with a friend, Mr. Van Epps. It was to borrow money from Miskinnett for a friend
Charles David Wilkinson- a solicitor practising in Hongkong. I was in Canton in August lost. I was present when you had a con- versation with Leung Ayon in the Shameen Hotel.
At this juncture Mr. Fraser-Smith desired .to pat in avidence the diaries of Mr. J. F. certain sums on account at certain dater, but Webber, as collateral proof of payment of Me. Tranels objected and bis lordship upheld
the objection.
After some further examfastion, during which the defendant was frequently interrupted, bath by the fadge and the counsel for the plaintiff, which resulted in several neat passages of words, the examination-in-chief of Minhinnett concluded.
Was
By the Court-It is absolutely untrue that Minhinnett ever saw me and offered to share the Joss on Webber's $1,500,
This concluded the evidence for the defence. Mr. Francis called no evidence on behalf of the plaintiff,
a verdict for the full amount claimed
remained due to plaintiff Under the provisions Suppose Leung Ayon did say he had pale! be they did not tell me how the money was especially under the circumstances, should should have gone to the trouble of making two from the announced bill of fare a grave error,
of the code, section 62, where the burden of the proof was thrown on the defendant, he must begin. He (Mr. Francis) had stated, the pleadings, and the burden of proof was on the defendent to show, after admitting signing the note, that the sums mentioned in his answer had been paid.
His lordship-How can that be evidence?
new deales it. I will allow you to proceed if it is not objected to, but I shall have to direct the jury that this is no evidence as to payment.
Witness continuing—Leung Ayan said that be
bad paid $roo to Mr. Minhinnett for Webber on account of a promissory note. You asked Leung Ayon if he had paid anything to Mr. Minhinnett on the promissory note and he said that he had paid $700. I also sent this letter (letter pat in nad ready to Mr. Rodyk in which I refer to $700 paid by Ah You to Minhinnett on a pro-
Mr. Fraser-Smith aid he was being sued for a sum of money which he did not acknowledge owing and it was for the plaintiff to prove bismissory note. Indebtedness. When the learned counsel took
upon himself to predict that the defence was limited to one of payment of the debt be overshot the mark. It would be quite time enough for him to prophecy what the defence was when he had heard it
His lordship said he thought the burden of proof was on the defendant. It was for him to prove that these amounts had been paid.
Mr. Fraser-Smith--I don't think your lordship
quite appreciates the situation.
His lordship-Don't be impertinenti Mr. Fraser-Smith--I did not intend to be, my lord.
His lordship- preside bere, and I thoroughly appreciate the position. You say this $1,300 has been paid and it is for you to prove it.
Mr. Francis sald that the $yoo had nothing to do with the note for $6too. There was a note for $700 signed by Mr. Webber and Leung Ayon, which he had still in his possession.
John Miphinnett (called and examined by Mr. Fraser-Smith) saidMr. Webher did not act as my agent for a considerable time. He has done Webber did not lend $5,000 to you on my some slight business for me as a solicitor. Mr. account. I lent it to you. may have stated bere on the roth November that I lent you is,000
I
Cross-examined by Mr. Francis-In the first instance the defendant and Webber got the money from the Bank. I gave security to the Bank and Webber drew the money, I don't know how it was drawn. I only know it was not repaid, and I had to make it good. I got $6,500 from the Chinese bank sad gave it to Mr. Webber and went with him to the O.B.C. and saw it paid in. In negotiating for this money from the O. B. C. I saw both Mr. Webber and Mr. Fraser-Smlib. The joint premissory note not signed by Mr. Fraser-Smith in my presence. At the time they got the money divided. They told me afterwards, I never received from Mr. Fraser-Smith's own hands any maqney on account of this note. From Mr. Webber I received $300 and $500. I received the $300 on the 9th July, 1889. There was then over six months, interest due. On or about the 15th January, 1890, I received the 8500; I got it from Mr. Webber's clerk, Mr. Van Eps. There was then much more than that amount due as interest. I received no other amounts from Mr. Wabber on the account. On the 30th August, 1889, 1lent Mr. Webber $600, and he paid it back on the 20th Sept. At the time he owed me another $1,000 on another account. am quite sure that the $600 pald on Sept. 20th was for the loan and bad nothing to do with the $6,500. I never agreed to divide the amount of the promissory note and take two notes instead of the folat note. I have had one other transac tlon with Mr. Fraser-Smith besides this one,
Smith at his office, dozens of times, I never Between the giving of the promissory note and the commencement of the action I saw Mr. Fraser- received $700 from Ayon on account of this note.
I
Mr. Frazer-Smith, in addressing the jury, sald the defence was simply that the amount claimed had already bece paid by or on behalfof Webber. He himself had paid twoerparate suras of $100 and $500 and it was in evidence that on the 20th September $600 was paid by Webber on account of this promissory note. Minhinnett had stated that this $500 was paid on account of something different altogether, that it was paid on analker transaction with Webber. In his affidavits which were made on the hearing of the case in Chambers, Minhinnett distinctly repudiated the suggestion that Webber had paid bim anything on this or on any other account. There was another promissory note of Webber's and on the strength of that Minhinnett made bis application to have Webber adjudicated a bank- rupt. Helthedefendant) maintained that the $60 paid by Webber on Sept. 20th was paid on account of the promissory note of $6,500. He thought the jury would agree with him that it was extremely hard lines that he (Mr. Fraser-Smith),
called upon to pay this $1,100. They had heard the evidence of Ah You, and would estinate it at its proper value. The only real witness in the case was Mr. Minhinnett, and he (tba defendant) called him bimself. He (the would never have been called had not he defendant) bad rever seen him before this transaction, bad only seen him a few times in connection with it, and yet this man actually had the Impudence to speak of him as "Smith." The whole of the statements with regard to thlacase made by Minhinnett in the box were a class of lles, deliberate los. He had only seen Minhinnett four times in his own office and twice or three times la Mr. Webber's and notwithstanding what had been said and done since in connection with this man, of which the whole colony was aware, he scarcely knew anything of him now, But apart from this the real question to deal with was thin, was he (the defendant}
plaintiff by Webber on behalf of this note liable for this money? He asked the jury to find that this $600 was paid to the Minbinnett had said that he had never received
His lordship, in summing up, said the first | sally recognised Queen of Song. For a goodly point to which he would call the attention of the number of years after that, many an enjoy. jury was the $700 sald to have been bald by whle evening was spent at St. James's Leung Ayon for Wabber on behalf of this pro- Hall and other popular resorts with tha mirrory note. - Whatever Ayan had told Mr. Fraser-Smith In Canton, he had stated in the greatest of England's vocalists, amongst whom witness box that he had not paid the sum for Madamo Patoy-Whytock and her talented hus. Mr. Webber. They could not tell what raston band held a foremost place; and with Mesdamsa Ayon had for making the statement he probably had done to Mr. Fraser-Smith, but he had now Patti, Neilasan, Lemmets-Shenington, Anto worn that it was not correct and it had been shown Inette Sterling, and Sinu Reeves, Santley, that it referred to another promissory note for Edward Lloyd, and other well-known artistas $700 which he and Mr. Webber, owed. Prob in their full vigour, the class of talent was the ably when he made that statement Smith there might have recent to Mr. Fraser very highest. And after the lapse of all these standing as to which note was being alluded to years it was our good fortune to renew acquain» In point of law-there could-be no doubt that on
tance with Madame Patey at the Theatre Royal, this joint note either man was liable for the City Hall, last Wednesday night. The occasion whole amount. It might be very hard if such was announced as a "Scottish Night" under agreement, as was put forward, exister; that one was to be responsible for $5,000, and the other the patronage of Colonel Chater and the Officers for $1,500, but there was no doubt that plaintiff of the gut Highlanders, and there was a large looked to the joint note as bis security and on audience present, the military element being that instrument he was entitled to recover the conspicuously predominant. full amount. The only observation he (his It is somewhat late in the day to commence lordship) could make was that it was extra fault-finding, but the Scottish Night" proved ordinary If this agreement was made, as was stated, at the same time as the omissory note quite mlinomer, a number of selections and in the presence of the plaintiff, that they napearing on the programme which were not Scatch in any sense. We thought the deviation documents. If the plaintiff agreed to this docu-" ment why should he Insist on the joint note! and as variety, even in music is not without but others regarded it as a decided Improvement, He might just as well have taken two promis- sory notes and held each party liable for the special attractions, perhaps the change was for, different amounts. That was the only observe the best, Madame Pater in far and away the of pointing out that it had been denied by the appeared on the Hongkong stage she tion to be made on that point, with the exception most accomplished vocalist that has ever plaistin that he had any knowledge of such
I indeed so far ahead of all rivale agreement. With regard to the 860s which it
that during our fifteen years experience as a regular critic in this colony we cannot recall was stated had been paid on behalf of this pro- Webber's diary that on the same date he had table second to the great singer now in our missory note, there was the statement in Mr. Any one who could be fairly placed as a respec- received $500 from the defendant and had merely a great singer; her art has the teach midst. But our distinguished visitor is not pald 8600 to the plaintiff, but there was no legal evidence to show that this was in respect of trui gealas-she is na‘actress of wondrous of this sum of $6,500. The plaintiff esbably the best of living concert-room contraltos. power and expression in addition to being pre- plained the payment of this other $100 Awith Cleopatra, age cannot wither nor by saying that It was interest paid to tim by Webber on another promissory note castor stala Madame Pater's Infinite varisty, of $1,000. That was his explanation, be produced and it may be doubted whether throughout no books, he stated he kept none and it was for her long waried, and exceptionally brillisat
regard to the other payments by Mr. Webber and Gray was a revelation, and held the audience the fury to any whether they accepted this career, she ever sang better or with greater explanation. There was no legal evidence with of that gem of Scottish song, "Auld Robin success than on Wednesday last. Her rendering the only point seemed to be with regard to this completely mell-brand. The heart-stirring
music of this fing old ballad is as much superio
the lyric stage as Lady Ann Lindsay's plaintive poems.to the third-rate trash that serves for words in modern songs, and Madame Patey's con ception of the sad story and her dramatic sen dering of the music were equally effective. In responsa ito la⠀ most ⠀ enthuslástió: encore, the singer's • magnificent volcé was heard to great advantage in that rather quaint and old- fashioned, but ever popular “My Boy Tammis," the lights and shades of a charming little story being brought into prominence with ardatio effect. Rarely has "Ye Banks and Braes" been ang with such exquisite taste, such feeling and expression, as on this occasion's it was simply perfect and defied criticism. The land of
that I did not pay you the money, but that T $700. It has never been repaid, I lent Ayon, cheque of Webber's received by him into his whether they believed the plaintiff as regards | to the ordinary, run of recognised favorites on
presumed Mr. Webber did. Mr. Webber acted as my sollektor in the matter.
Mt. Fraser-Smith-Certainly, my lord, If that Is your lordship's raling. I only wish to disabuse your mind, of the idea that I intended to be impertinent. I think your lordship entirely misconstrued my remark.
His lordship-The only construction I could
for you and not me to decide as to the procedure. | said he had no money," Your defence is that the money was paid and the opus is on you to prove it.
By the defendant-I met you on several occa sions before you signed the note, I saw you in your office with Webber a fortnight before he left the Colony and you asked me to divide the note. I refused to do so, I did not see you sign the promissory note. Webber took it up to you; you were sick or something.
$1,900 op an insurance policy. There is no truth in the statement that I kept back $700 out of that sum in payment of this note. Ayon had nothing to do with this transaction of $6,500.
bands he admitted he had received the amount, $100, and said that he had forgotten it. Here was a man, who admitted that he had large money transactions, yet could produce no books or accounts at all. He stated that he kept no books and could produce nothing. The case, resolved itself into a simple question of facts and whether the jury would believe the statements made by Minhinnett or those made by himself, In his supreme legal ignorance he bad thought that there were circumstances which he could
this, or whether they thought ho was entitled to the full amount of $1,300.
This, Jary then retired and after a quarter of an hour's consideration returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount, by a majority of five to two,
Mo Francis asked for judgment for $1,500 with interest from the date of issue of writ, and Costa....
Mr. Fraser-Smith-I ask your lordship' to stay execution for a month, I will pay the amount of judgment and costs fate Court, but I ank for stay of execution in order that I may take the necessary steps for a new trial, 1
beginning of next month.
His lordship On what grounds do you want qual, skill, whilst that magnificent battle song, Soots what hae" called into play 6. new trial?
dramatic and vocal powers that are simply Mr. Fraser,Smith-On the ground that sub-marvellous. The audience were fairly electrified stantial evidence as to the payment of these and cheered to the echo. sums will be forthcoming....
His lordship sald he saw no reason to acceda to the application, and entered an order for Judgment with costs,
CHINA SUGAR REFINING COM.
PANF, LIMITED.
Miss Bertha Rossow is the possessor of a soprano volca of great range and considerable sweetner and, albeit her method is somewhat g crude, she sings without apparent effort and gives; every promise of one day becoming a high-class ; Vocalist. This young Australian singer, however,..
GE great deal to learn, and we far as her efforts on Wednesday night are concerned, whe godi was only moderately successful, Afton Watzen? hod was sung without feaing, the vocalist's artles i
was especially defective, Miss Rossow Improved ulation let much to be desired, and her phrasing greatly in #Robin Adair," and although, the rendering of this beautiful balled war ales facing an expression, it all toda este mot
in elicited a hearty encore, selection from Un Ballo in Maschera la which she scored a decided muccess, "Within a mile 'Edinbora toon i was Miss RossoW'S DENT effort, but she did much better in Mozart's duet our opinion att forts at the present time is "Crudel Perche"
o” with... Mt.: Patey, and la, not the Kuld Scotch sanga *** In “Killarney * Miss Rossow was much more at home, a tasteful
To the Court-The money was lent fa this way, I became security in November 1815 to the O. B. C. for $6,500 on behalf of Mr. Fraser leto the witness box, He said-On the 8th Mr. Fraser-Smith, the defendant, then went Smith said it would only be for a day or two, a December, 1898, I signed a promissory note ia Smith and Mr. Webber for a fortnight. Mr. Fraser- fortnight at the furthest. When the fortnight Mr. Webber's office. I had received the sum of was up the money had not been paid into the $5,000 some ten days previously from Mr. Bank, and the manager wrote to me saying the Webber. At the time I received the cheque money had to be paid. I went to Mr. Fraser did not know who was lending the money. On Smith's office; be said he had been disappointed the 8th December I went to Mr. Webber's oflice, urge by which it might have been that the and talked in the "olly way he does and pro- I saw Minhinnett there and was informed that promissory note could have been held as
blading posed that I might try if I could get it from a he was the lender, Mr. Webber asked me, in
His lordship, and doubtless he put on it was you intended to convey that it was Chinese Bank. I went to Mr. Wobber and he sign a faint promissory note for $6,500, Isgreed be submitted. As's matter of equity, he felt believe Mr. Wabber will be here about the the Leul" as an encore, was rendered: with.
his presence, if I would, as he wanted money,
was right, held that these points could not
been produced stating that $5,000 was for me to do so. At the same time, the note which has certain that any seven commercial men in the colony, considering the intimate and finnu- and $1,500 for Webber, was rigned to Minhin- cial relations between Webber and Mishinset. Mr. Fraser-Smith said he quite understood
nett's presence, and the joint promissory note and considering the fact that he (the defendant) that. He was only sorry that his lordship should
was likewise signed in his presence. I had had had over and over again asked for a settlement, Imagine for a moment that he fatended to be
previously one transaction with Miablanett would feel perfectly justified in setting aside this Impertinent. Addressing the jury, defendant said
through Mr. Webber. On the 15th November, promissory note. He left the decision in the head been taken somewhat unawares is the position he had been placed by the ruling of the
1888, I had borrowed $1,500 for a friend of mine, hands ofthe Jury feeling assured that they would Mr. Fraqcie.He wasn't dying, was he l Court, which was no doubt perfectly correct. In
and bold receipts for the payment. Iheard nothing take a just and equitable view of the whole case. Mr. Fraser-Smith-I am sorry to have to of this matter of $6,500 until I heard from Mr. Mr. Francis said he kad but a few words to his simplicity he had thought that when one person was suing another for a sum of money in
make a complaint, my lord, of rudenem on the Webber on the 11th May, 1888, saying that say to the jury and very little with regard to a court of justice, it was for that person to come
part of the learned counsel Mr. Minhinnett Minhinnett wanted something on account. I what had just been sald. The claim was on a forward and prove his esse. However, the onus
said I was sick and Mr. Francis insulifugly sent him a cheque for $300. On the 20th joint promissory note signed by the defendant September I had another note from Webber and Webber, This note, in polot of law, made each had been thrown on him and he would shortly said "He wasn't dying, was he relate the circumstances of the transaction. In His lordskip-Oh I never mind; let's get on asking me if I could pay $500 on account of the of the two defendants equally liable for the entire November, 1888, there was a case tried in that with the case.
loan.” I sent the $500 at once, and Mr. Webber sum borrowed. Mr. Fraser-Smith in his opening Court which was commonly known as the “Salt Mr. Fraser-Smith (to Mr. Francia)—I'll settle Minhinnett 100 more. The next thing I heard which this money was borrowed, and if they had returned the receipt and stated that he had paid address told them them the circumstances under
The thirteenth ordinary annual meeting of Carter ease; his lordship presided and Mr. | with you my own way," Francis appeared for his (Mr. Fraser-Smith's)
was on the soch Jan., 1890, when Webber wrote paid attention only to his opening address they shareholders in the above named Company was Examination continued I never saw theme that kishinnett was pressing him for money might have come to the conclusion that he was held at the office of the General Agents, Padder Grends He was acting for certain Chinese document signed by you and Webber, in which
me heated mato lead him sog to pay kies in want of $10,000, not $5,000 or $5,500. He Street, this morning (1st Inaty for the pargnes of concerned in that case, and had entered into you state bow the money was divided. I had arrangements on their behalf for the purchase ao correspondence with you prior to the signlegg on account. I did not land him the had told them that in Chinese full of red receiving a report from the General Agent, with of two gunboats in Cantos. Disputes arose of the promissory note. I have written to you me and told me that he had got the money be was left liable for the purchase of certain mency, and the same afternoon Webber came to transactions with certain Chinese falling through
a statement of accounts to the 31st December, amongst the Chinese, the case came lato Court, and applied to you personally for this money and had paid. Minhinnet, I was continually gunboats, and Mr. Mishinnett corroborated 1890. There were present -Messrs. J. J. case. They were unable to carry out the from you on the 14th March, 1890, sking me to Mr. Minklunett was only in my office tour times, amount for the purpose and the parties for whom he was acting lost the before Mr. Webber left the colony. I got a Teiter pressing Mr. Webber to settle this matter. this in stating that he went security for this Keswick (Chairman); D. R. Sassoon, N. 1. contract that he had entered into on their behalf call at your office and arrange matters on the twice with Mr. Webber and twice alone,
of the purchase Gomes, St. C. Michaelsen (Consulting Com JAW of certain gunboats, Webber and Fraser was required for the purchase of these do not think it was arranged. I did not take any office, once after tifin and once at dinner, Beyond wished to and he was left responsible. Some $10,000 following Sunday. I went to your office but I him four times at Mr. Webber's, twice at his Smith, he believed, through Webber's account, mitee); W. H. Gasicell, R. A. Gubbay, C.18,
extent of Taylor, G. Fenwick, R. Lyall, W. Legge, gunboats and Mr. Webber, who acted in further action till May. I had no reasons for not that I had never seen him. The 24th March 86.500 and Minkinnett undertook to be respon. Barton (Secretary), and others and effive condering of this charming song the case as salicilor, agreed to arrange a loan for going on with the action till that time. Surely 1890 was the next I heard about the matter. $5.000. Mr. Webber did so, and on the 8th I could choose my own time? I received a latter
"sible for this overdraft. How much of this num
The Chairman, in opening, the proceedings being deservedly applauded. Pripreme December, 1888, defendant learned that the from you on the 10th May in which you ask for. bar and Mr. Minhinnett called on me. The Wabber did not matter one way or the other. Mr. have boga in your hands for some time, and there in fact, only the remains of his once das voles
letter on the 14th March and Mr. Web- went to Mr. Finser-Smith and how mach to Mr. sald Gentlemen, the report and accounts Mr. JG. Paley has not improved with years, i fender was Mr. Minhinnett, of the Public Works an explanation of the letter from Dennys and Department, When he went to sign the Mossop, after the arrangement with me. That Minhinnett were on the most friendly terms and it he stated that he only received $5,000 and that of Information beyond what is ready shown apfile an of old. If accomod cons that a music matter was left in abeyance. Webber and Fraser-Smiths might be perfectly correct when is not much that I can usefully add in the way are lefly but he is nevertheless, the sims trus promissory note, Mr. Webber, who was does not suggest to me that any arrangement was agreed to let the matter stand over. In May apparently in fourishing state of business; had been made. Go the 19th June I received a Treceived the letter from Dennys and Mossop. 1 Mr. Minblanett had positively sworn that he knew that the excited condition of them agar bandly in place at a concert of Scottish Classical
wanted socommodation for short letter from you asking me to call on the following looked on the matter as a joke, after the arrange- nothing of this at the time the money was lent markets during, 1889 had enabled the Refinery two must adult that it was
the remaining $1,500 went to Mr. Webber, but When addressing you a year ago 1 raention hall ditty of the "Powder Monkey" stamp was time, and asked him if he objected to Sunday and make some arrangement for the mant. made. I had dozens of times asked to signing a joint note for $6,500 of which he settlement of your personal ability. I may have the matter settled.
and that he knew nothing of the document to to show results for that year which also be said for Mr. Faley's rigorous (Webber) was to have $1,500. He consented and have called on the following Sunday. I went so
that effect which had been put fo. He wasonly were somewhat phenomenal, and that a repati- signed the note, but to make sure that there should many times that I cannot remember particular the $5,000
Mr. Francis–Did you ever offer to put down told subsequently of this arrangement. When tion of them could not, therefore, reasonably handling off The Dall's gjawabd with othe be
be demanded repayment of his money Mr. be expected; the course of the taarkets during in his dues with Alas Rossow, often p mistake, in the prosence of the plaintiff times. I do not know that anything was
Exclaman, but he showed to most advantagat a document was drawn up and signed by Mr, arranged, The,only thing I wanted was for you
Witness Yes, 1· did.
Fraser-Smith endeavoured to get out of his liable 1895 has been characterised by quietness, and Webber and himself stating that $5,000 and Webber to settle up amicably, If possible. I'
Ilty for the whole and to induce him to put him although the volume of business has been on the Mr. Lemmone's flute solos, especially the was to be lent to him, and the other $1,500 to did not want to force you and Webber lato the
His lordship Did you ever tender the chequer down as a creditor for $5,000, leaving the re whole satisfactory, the margin of profit and been fantals on Scotch aim, were splendidly played Mr. Webber,
Court.
Witness-No, my lord but I had it ready speasibility of the other $1,500 with Webber. It small, the general level of prices has been very and those who remember this accomplished Well, the legal proceedlage threatened fell was proved that after Minhinnalt going security much lower than during the previous year, and autist will Amy Sherwin's company two year His lordship-The instrument upon which Mr. Fraser-Smith-But your policy changed through. On the 19th June, Mr. Minhinnett for the money Mr. Fraser-Smith and Mr. Web- you are being sued is the joint promissory note, | after Webber left the Colony, !
learned that Mr. Webber was in what is gener- ber had failed to pay it and Mr. Minhinnett
some of our outlying markets, have been inter- 180, will be glad to see the distinct advance ha which the plaintiff holds as security.
fered with owing to importations of refined sugar has made in his art.” The distance between Mr, Mr. Fraser-Smith said he submitted that change. I called on you about a fortnight after preceding the 19th June Mr. Webber and Mr. difficulty he got the money from a Chinese tempted, except on a very small scale. I am pleased getting narrower every day, and before many
Witness—Yes; I can give the reason for that | ally known as “ Queer Street.” On the Sunday was called upon to make it good. After some
from Europe, which had not previously been at Lemmené and his great master. Radcliffe - la there were, circumstances under which even Wabber left the colony, and I asked you what Minhinnett called at my office. That was the bank through Tang King. The whole trans- a promissory note might be set aside. you were going to do in the matter. You said it fast time I ever saw Mr. Minhlenatt till I saw action as described by Mr. Minhinnett was the Company continues in a sound condition, our land;, kse taken a leading place on the to be able to say, however, that the business of months sis over we shall expect to hear, that He submitted that he ought to be allowed was very hard lines on you to have to pay this him in the Court. On the 19th June I wrote to a very simple and natural one, Now on the and although necessarily subject to fluctus London stage Mr. Hermann Morris played the to make the existence of this agreement money, meaning the $1,500 Webber got. I said him making him to see me on the following promissory note there could be no doubt that floss from time to time, the prospects in the accompaniments throughout with noteworthy
skill and taste, although heavily plalati through Mr. Webber two sums, one and I'll lose $750 and you said, "No, not a That was my last communication with him on
whole amount. Sapposing that Minhinnett was The shareholders will no doubt be glad to star solos from being heard to advantage,
how much that the extension of the Refinery at informed by Mr. Webber, when he made the I said "Very well, then we shall have to Bght Messrs. Dennys and Mossop threatening legal each party had received; te had last payment, that he (Webber) had added You said "Yes, and I'll make it hot for you. I proceedings. I wrote: back, måling for an a joint, and several note, and whether he was giving results fully equal to what was antic
Ta Tikka se a whole the concert was a marked another tee to it when he handed it over to sald "Very well, we'll now about that," and I account of what was due from me to, be sent coralsant or not of the existence of the other patod. Before moving the depdes of the associated with recollections of Madame Faley, Minhinnett. He had over and over agala paada left. I remember the occasion because you
and the amount would be daly paid. An document he had a perfect right to hold either report and accounts I shall be pleased to answer in the memories of all lovers of masia who were application to Minalanet to render him an ac showed me a letter you had received from a man account was sent to me which was incorrect gentleman who had signed the nota liable. I any questions that may be put sonde energiemana de las take to bea
го
-overdraw to
Lear
we sung
known to the jury. He had paid to the "we will divide the differences you lose $750 | Sunday and that arrangements would be made both parties severally were responsible for the long run are, so faz As can be seen, satisfacto: • Fwith a piano which effectually prevented of $100 and one of $500, and he had boond-ed cash ; you can go to Court and get it,” || the matter, The next thing was a note from aware of this document decizii inafsted on, undertaken at the beginning of last youtuber success/a-high class musical treat that will beź