for transmission to Lord Carnarvon.
I can make no
make no other
other report than
is contained in the
the judgment.
One object in having it printed was that the facts might be
put in a convenient form for
his Lordship's
use.
I have re,
(signed) John Smale, Chief Justice.
94
10529 7
# JUDGMENT
## OF THE SUPREME COURT OF HONGKONG,
### DELIVERED ON THE 5th OF JULY, 1875.
(From the "Daily Press" of July 7th, 1875, Corrected),
## IN THE SUIT OF
### LANDSTEIN v. THE KING OF ANNAM.
This cause had come on for argument before the full Court on a petition of appeal by the Defendant against an order made by Mr. Justice Snowden on the 3rd of May, by which order all proceedings in the case had been in effect put an end to.
Counsel lately argued the various questions raised in the petition at length, and the Court took time to consider its decision.
Judgment was now given on the appeal by the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Snowden at length.
The Chief Justice Sir JOHN SMALE delivered the following judgment:-
This is a suit by Mr. Landstein, a merchant in this Colony, against His Majesty To Dae, King of Annam, sued in his private capacity, commenced by writ of summons dated 14th October, 1873, being suit No. 1 under the new Code of Procedure.
On the writ is endorsed the subject matter of the plaintiff's claim, being for a balance in the whole of $159,752.19, and the relief sought is the payment of that sum to the plaintiff.
Mr. Erdmann, the managing clerk to the plaintiff, who was then absent, made affidavit that the defendant was absolutely indebted to the plaintiff in $159,792.19 in the usual form, and a writ of foreign attachment was issued, as of course, out of the office by the Registrar under which the defendant's steamer Dang Wee, then in this harbour, was seized by the sheriff on the 14th October, 1873.
The plaintiff filed his petition in the manner and form prescribed by the New Code on the 27th October, 1873, in which he briefly stated his case. He stated an agreement in writing, dated 20th January, 1870, between the plaintiff and Lai How, and Ng Woh, therein described as mandarins and ambassadors on behalf of the defendant, which the plaintiff set out in a schedule to the petition.
By that agreement, after reciting the purchase by the two mandarins on behalf of the King of the steamship Commodore, with certain alterations to be made in her, then in this harbour, at the price of $66,000, it was agreed that upon the repairs, &c., therein specified being made, the two mandarins on defendant's behalf would pay to the plaintiff the said $66,000, either at Annam, or in Hongkong. That the ship so repaired and equipped had been long ago delivered to and accepted by the defendant.
The petition, by an error of the pleader, stated that the name of the Commodore was changed, and that she was afterwards called the Dang Wee. The petition also stated that the vessel was used by the defendant for the purposes of trade or profit, having very frequently put into the harbour of Hongkong with cargoes of merchandise on board for sale, and that she had not been a war steamer in any fair sense of the word.
The petition further alleged sales to the defendant, in his capacity of trader, of goods and merchandise at various times to a very large amount.
The petition claimed payment of the amount for which the writ was issued.
On the 17th November, 1873, an appearance "under protest" was entered by Mr. Brereton, as attorney for the defendant.