انت به خونه مادر داوری اور لار
H.K. Dily Press 5/4/11
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION. BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR FRANCIS
PIGGOTT (CHIFF JUSTICE).
TATEM . HOWELL, The action was continued in which John Tatem sued Frederick Howell, chief bailiff of the Supreme Court, for an account since 24th September, 1905, of the receipts and disbursements of the defendant in respect of the plaintiff's business of a butcher and com- pradore carried on under the style of the Hongkong Butchery, and for a receiver.
Mr. M. W. Slade, K.C., instructed by Mr. J. H. Gardiner, appeared for the plaintiff, and defeudant was represented by Mr. Eldon Potter, who was instructed by Mr. C. E. H. Beavis (of Messrs. Wilkinson & Grist).
His Lordship said it seemed to him that this case resolved itself into one point of great importance, and that cross-examination such as Mr. Potter started yesterday, and would prob. ably continue, would not influence the Court very much in coming to a decision on that point. It was quite clear what the plaintiff's case was, but the point which it seemed to his Lordship had to be decided was whether Howell was connected with the Butchery Co. That decided, he thought the case could be settled in a couple of hours.
Mr. Slade--There are two points really.
His Lordship-That is the important point, Mr. Slade said he bad evidence to put forward to show that Howell was connected with it. Then there was the other point, which was that the account which was given in 1899 and 1904 did not disclose the true facts with regard to the original Butchery.
His Lordship-Supposing Mr. Howell were to prove satisfactorily that he was not connected in any way with the Butchery Co. ? Then there is not very much of the case left.
Mr. Slade There is not so vory much, but still there is a substantial point on the previous accounts.
His Lordship-I am not quite clear what that point is.
Mr. Slade The point is that the account delivered, which is the only account that the plaintiff ever got from the defendant, does not
cover-
Way
His Lordship- Of course there is that point. Mr. Potter said it seemed to him that whether Mr. Howell was connected or uot connect- ed with the present Hongkong Batchery immaterial unless the plaintiff coul prove that the business of the Hongkong Butchery was not closed in January, 1907, and unless the plaintiff could prove that some of his money or property was carried on into the second batchery, and was still there. His Lordship would see the foundation of the whole
case. First of all, the plaintiff started off by saying that the defendant falsely and fraudu- lently represented to him that the business was in a bad way.
His Lordship - When I say the Butchering Co., I mean the Company which started im- mediately after the finish of the Butchery.
Mr. Potter-Our position is that we have nothing to do with it, but assuming for the sake of argument that Mr. Howell owns the present Butchery Co., that does not give the plaintiff any right against him if it is clear that the business was wound up in January 1907.
His Lordship-Supposing it is established that Mr. Howell was connected with the Butchery Co. at that time, then the case assumes very different features.
Mr. Potter-I do not see how it can assume different features unless the plaintiff can satisfy your Lordship that false accounts were delivered, and that the business was not wound up in January, 1907,
His Lordship-I don't want you to argue now. Mr. Potter-Your Lordship will remember that I have been half an hour cross-examining, while it took two and a half hours to get throngh the evidence in chief,
His Lordship-It seems to me you are going to have rather an extensive cross-examination.
Mr. Potter-There has been no withdrawal of the statement regarding false accounts and that we swindled the man out of money. I shall be only too willing to cut the case short in any shape or form your Lordship can suggest. His Lordship-Direct yourself to the main point.
Mr. Potter That Mr. Howell bud no cou- nection with the subsequent business?
Hie Lordship-With the Butchering Co. Mr. Potter-On that point there was no cross- examination of the plaintiff at all.
His Lordship-- You now grasp the point?
Mr. Potter I have grasped the point all along, but there is still a further point: assum- ing Mr. Howell was the owner of the business from January 15th, 1907, up to the present day, how does that give the plaintiff any right against him
Lordship-You
can argue that
His afterwards.
Mr. Potter-As long as fraud is before the Court, I must put some questions to the plain- tiff on it. I regret it, but my friend has chosenL not to withdraw.
Mr. Slade-No, I certainly do not. The evidence up to date seems to support it.
Mr. Potter-I regret it, but I cannot ignore the allegations of fraud.
Evidence was resumed, and had not concluded when the Court roso.
134