349
20
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL.
HONGKONG, 25th July, 1865.
In the Cases tried at the Summary Jurisdiction Court, Nos. 6 and 1, July 25th 1865. KINGSMILL. HORY, $477.25 and $354, verdict in both cases for Plaintiff, No. 6 $213.25 and costs, No. 7 $47 (costs for Defendant.) TO THE HONORABLE H. BALL, Esq., ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT, HONGKONG.
May it please your Lordship. Rescinding what I have already written on this subject, I crave leave to Appeal to your Lordship in both the above Case No. 6 on the following Grounds.
cases.
my
evidence on oath was cutirely ignored.
1st.--That 2nd. That the following corroborative testimony was also entirely ignored.
The irregularity of the writ of Summons served on me, which I en- close for your Lordship's perusal, rendering an appearance unnecessary.
The circumstance of the copy of this writ being in my hands, and not in Mr. KINGSMILL'S.
The absence of all papers or anything approaching a file in Mr. KINGS- MILL's hands.
The admission in his bill of costs that I refused to allow him to enter an appearance for me. The failure to investigate the charge I made that Mr. KEMPNER had never instituted the action. This could have been proved by calling on Mr. OWEN for his correspondence to and with Mr. KEMPNER in that case.
In this respect I admit that in my Appeal against Mr. KEMPNER, Mr. OWEN was his duly constituted lawyer, and Mr. KINGSMILL was mine--but in the case of KEMPNER against me, I submit that no lawyer was retained for either party. and I respectfully urge the investigation of this point. I say it is
21
clear that Mr. KINGSMILL acted without instructions and from over zeal, and I believe Mr. OWEN did likewise.
And I call your Lordship's attention to the portion of KINGSMILL'S letter to me, enclosed herewith, marked in the margin. He there admits the want of instructions and stated that Judgment had been signed against me, a point which the archives of the Court should have been searched to test.
I also call your Lordship's attention to the P. S. at the foot of the bill of costs, stating that in September no further steps were taken because the parties had come to a settlement. I left Hongkong for Europe in April, 1 re- turned in November, and heard nothing whatever from Mr. OWEN, and I did not settle with KEMPNER until about February 1864. It is true that on my return from Europe, Mr. KINGSMILL did write ine stating that he had adopted proceedings for which he now charges me, but I at once repudiated them.
th
Case No. 7, I Appeal.
1st. Because my evidence on oath was also ignored.
2nd.---I submit this evidence is corroborated by the fact of my having
paid Mr. KINGSMILL his bill in this very case before Heft for England. He told me as per letter (marked A), that the Chief Justice gave it as his opinion, that I must lose the Appeal. I then desired that he would give me his bill, and when I paid it I told him to take no further steps. I enclose it for
your Lord- ship's perusal, and ask if it is at all likely that this can be a bill on account, or
a partial bill. I am aware that the case did go to Appeal, and was decided against me, but I was the Appellant, I could stop when I pleaseil, and I sub- mit I did stop.
The Ion. Mr. WHITE never sought any explanation on this point from Mr. KINGSMILL. On these points I humbly beg that the Honourable the Acting Chief Justice will see fit to give leave to Appeal.
I have the Honor, &c.,
H. E. HOEY.
DEX
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.