he did not pay a writ would be issued. On the other hand, it was possible tbat O'Halloran be- ing a friend, he gave him, though his Lordship did not think it should have been done, friendly warning hat a writ was about to he issned. With regard to the orders sent to the registry to Mr. Howell, defendant's explanation was not altogether clear. All those things required explanation, and the explanation was not in all cases quite satisfactory. The next point was the sale to Tang Kee. It was suggested that no other arrangement could have been possible, than to make the best sale, a forced sale it seemed to have been looked upon. to the first person who came along, but another arrangement was possible. His Lord-
ship would have thought it would have been possible in the circumstances to havé arranged for a small commission to have been paid. He did not know that Tang Kee would have ac- cepted it, but at least be thought that efforts should have been made to have obtained it. The point which he thought had been over- Iooked was that they were selling or authorising Tang Kee to use a name which was well known at that time, which had been for two years before the European community,the name of the Hong- kone Butchery. It was known to be a European shop, and it was a name in which Tatam as well as Howell had a definite interest. His Lordship did not think in the circumstances, if Tatam had had a legal adviser, that any mar would have sanctioned the arrangement going through. He thought that Howoll was to blame both in his own interest and in Tatau's. He thought he ignored rather the fact that Tatam had a definite interest in the name, that the name was going to be used, as it was in fact. need a few days afterwards, by the Chinaman who bought it. Tang Kee himself told the Court that he had his eye on the business. He saw it was failing and he thought he could make a good business of it. If a little care had been devoted to investigating the whole thing that would have ensured a more equitable arrangement boing made. Referring to Tatam's departure from the Colony and the sale of the business a day or two afterwards, his Lordship said it was inevitable that when this man thought he had boon defrauded that he should think that he had been got out of the Colony, He did not think that Tatam had been got out of the Colony. He thought that was a stretch of imagination. On the other hand, bis Lordship thought Tatam was considerably to blame, because it was his business to look after his Own interests, and 90 for the Court could not help him. He allowed things to be perfectly clear, that if he had stopped, as Tang Kee wanted a European manager, he might have been engaged by Tang Kee. The only question was whether the state of alarm which undoubtally Mr. Howell was in was throughly justified when the business was discon- tinued. The accounts were most extraordinary, Nobody seemed to have been able to unravel them in Court until Mr. Lowe arrived, and Mr. Lowe had certainly put them per- fectly straight. He was bound to accept
evidence of that sort. It was clear when they came to examine the figures that there had been a leakage and he was, lad to find that Mr. Howell did not attribute that in any way to Mr. Tatam. There were discrepancies in the figures which were not very clear, but the evidence was not sufficiently strong for his Lordship to pass deliberate judgment upon them. That being so, the question was whether he could find that frand had been proved. He could not. It wase a civil offence, most serious, and hence had come the rule that it must be proved to the Lilt. However diffident he felt with regard to some of the items and however conscious he was that the explanations were not altogether satisfactory, yet he was bound to hold that the charge of fraud bad not been proved to the hilt. Therefore judgment raust be for defendant and, of course, with costs. In view of the fact that the case had been lengthened by the injudicions acts of the defendant the only equitable order for him to make was that the judgment should be for defendant with costs, but that he must pay to the plaintiff the costs of three days of the trial, those three days not including the first.
149