334
You hiros cu?! „eetne, no neeveed doge hoarse nd blynila 21 at
drome ading wattgih kulit a lé nouant al (* "ot vietos hor enob se
tell) wir ve absi nottes - wa el yon a wolfs or beatfonh vi-
Vitac 21 20f rumite ovim að ofbraoqni ront ni ese solteul,
beert ze guiment (Inc ken anottapue fora deild mwonź (Isw
to patawi kuid redhe
Ismintro memotresu mi geregong An
ni nofanerɖsh femena ubror() benaaronb das bad Kolly to oulev
·
or qr turq el of bebre vol new 7 .becolovebror asw Reise busi
men edo do rowerhovku asu de (ESMANČNO ara ed mottake offdieg
* Asy I •DR OF AT
wd to ROPE-
C
aðaring heret:0
pofol este nd unding of his nie. hivbbak maibga! amoi“ev od x-
do 28 roničke dud braf ai Laob offer
mir) bei'oson ya mwit asy as walt disgras A
000,0%£% 20 Tento na eba. o. (edato naamios ade or dusbauteb
hedgeons new dow
„bevinges reto dand as enw eb
Cedra. Anthro Me Be (ENIT CA SA azt
eric golevan big bandoring of menalnega a hrymo?,raskland to
.boaners rely ends, aceros al emoz hrs (Vinoqong
Ino ask elva et abtes zen or athaf wh
#UNG net rette bu hoqoIever no d bar wêrteqor
-510 ab' sebw mutis egnebrar Jelosa a deal hereros bad IsaBITO- to de golovch wit not abrit visaanood sild shivon; or 899382-
are pe notari foo bee buant to endo el
ane)
OW" dere das wife na beasd need evad of *e0 voter Want nú q* add to yoligs we al eray sessiong of CHIT ME Mood bloa orly anseen toe Isaiyiro
zino ustić na wood
evil mine qua Isto* :
***
La a viav ♬ bezuding noo
aо8£ nende vêy on to Iedox and to tнO Zreltoh busavorit ast of
-K
Aito
be bitte
wwregun milz qoforoh bis sandorug or bedbroadue
hut # crore iw bain: Bev paso ef
r. tot berobno rolaRECHORON on bus eblas taa nsw
expended in developing the property.
The defendant to the counter claim, who was the biggest sufferer by this judgment, is appealing to the Privy
Council against it, and has already obtained an opinion wholly
in his favour on this question of compensation from one of the
leading Equity King's Counsel in England, which has been endors-
-ed by the judgment of the Puisne Judge in the preliminary
appeal here; this however was over-ruled by the predominant
vote of the Chief Justice.
3rd. Case.
Imperial Bank of China v. Loung Shia
King.
The amount involved in this case was some
$350,000. The Bank asked for a special jury, the defendant's
Counsel opposed this on the ground that there would be a pro-
-longed examination of accounts and the Chief Justice supported
this contention (under Section 290 Sub-section 3 of Code.)
As a matter of fact although a large amount
of evidence was taken by commission in Shanghai &c., there was
no very prolonged examination of accounts as the whole case
only occupied a few days in the hearing. Judgment was postponed
and delivered after the Chief Justice had called in a Chartered
Accountant.
It is open to argument whether this Section
of the Code should have been applied in this case.
The sum involved was a very large one, and
several questions of fact were raised. Under these circims-
-tanoes, it would appear that a special jury composed of lead-
-ing business men of the Colony would have been a more satis-
-factory assistance to the Court in deciding these questions of
fact than a single accountant.
4th. Case.
Lo Man Cho v. Hongkong and Shanghai
Banking Corporation.
This was a claim to recover certain
securities held by the Bank which they claimed had been deposit-
-ed with them as security against payment of certain Bills of
Exchange
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.