The Hongkong Telegraph, Sunday, Aug 19, 1888
Correspondence.
[We do not necessarily endorse the opinions expressed by Correspondents in this column.]
To the Editor of the "Hongkong Telegraph"
Sir,
In the case of "Stanton v. Falconer" reported in yours of yesterday, Miss Harriet v. Falconer, the defendant is reported to have stated that she had a claim against Falconer and Company? This may be true in a sense, but whether it is a just claim or not is the real question. I think from the fact that Mr Sharp of Sharp, Johnson, and Stokes, had for two years and a half considered the case, without being able to advise her to take legal proceedings to establish her alleged rights, it is evident that she had no case.
Miss Falconer in her statement omitted an important fact, namely, that she had obtained the signature of Mrs Marion Falconer of Chicago to a document under which she now claims, and that Mrs Marion Falconer has since stated that when she signed, she was sick, and did not know the nature or effect of the document. This interesting document purports to be an assignment by Mrs Marion Falconer to Miss Harriet P. Falconer of all her interest in the business of Messrs Falconer & Co. in consideration of one dollar.