‚"žnegang oris nakɖofør b at bobnauza
une oilw、użalo reči:oo suly or tushnoteb suff
wybyß wie de tráfnsuge al, tubombul, abid yd renat va des mid evla pitalu notut jo us boulardo vhsenļa noit bis di tantana Ilamrol mild to são rar, Höfðaen-grico to noktaorp alilé no woyek aki ni busint mi Iearr a'qul olan gribasi -añobus (1890 a dobiv
Staithed long suit of embrī. maalu2 edt to dusraboj, siir vd bo- anith whəng með yď boliy-tevo ake revovod alde partai Iss118 oldu 1-13 0.17 to scov
ate quot v saint to sneg fetapil
30.02 usw papo alile ni beyComm) tacors erf
•
ses .bid
a'rushvrstah mild yuh fatosqu s tot berlas 215 50.000,028) worth a ed blwow srede is & bevorm offé en afle beau Isemro3 bocnogra palda T tabith eile bae #truouor to notesateave bennol-
(.sbob to 6 molrosa-dı” 00% nokzoe? rebruc tolésedauo a lis
*RIOUS Aset a dovodidle dost to racha s el
Can Di 7 n. bat nani? at note. In oa yď nehat Raw Sonebive 70
Bala *foliv ela as Bðmsodor to moltechska beynolong vise on hekoutnog nav rearmbut Ancei 45% ni ayub ust a belguono Miro
bane, next s i betina bai galia 1 tabah ada 402to berevifob bra
Exchange.
365
The issue before the Court was whether the
unpaid Bills of Exchange were, or were not, drawn by the agents of the Wang Fung Firm and negotiated to the Bank. In support
of their contention that the drawers of the Bills were agents
of the Wang Fung Firm the defendants produced certain of the
Wang Fung Books showing all the Bills of Exchange as drawn by the various native banking firms entered in the "ang Fung Books to prove that these native banking firms were in fact agents of
the Wang Fung Firm.
The Chief Justice refused to admit any of
the Books in evidence and stated that he believed the Books
were not the Books of the Vang Fung Firm but were really the
Books kept by the native banks in their bill discounting
business.
In this case there was not a large mass of
Chinese documentary evidence as the defendant Bank relied on
about 3 or 4 Books to prove their contention.
The Bank applied for a special jury and it
was refused on the ground of Section 290 Sub-section 3 of the
Code.
notron niitz inflrule Inorumna 02 de ni I
b.A
.9a8o ujde ni baifqqs need are hiwora whol ede to
(ANO BATAI WAV B Bar haylovui rua erő
-amotto eeds robil.boater ere, tost to anoldean Izzovez
-beef to bennigoo vyį, Lefooqa a Shar menggo alwow di B6DNSU-
-elisa sort a hole avui putov urodon sɗa to nen naenland pal-
to omobrang sarda salblush ai asuoti mir of sousdelana vtorout-
„HOÀ Jatoqlol mažinað
.némvooos simila e mart jost
.9840 SA
Kładzeo 1600/ of miało 8 as at T
méhan jab meed hai bentsło ve's noire Xask wlà võ html eAi:İYOGR
To sILAK mintiiso tu rusenten rank na vrinposa es reuir dołu biņ*
was $1,340,000.
The total amount of the claim by the Bank
The Chief Justice rejected the Books on the
strength of the evidence before the Court, but it was essential- -ly a case for a Jury to decide whether as a matter of fact the Books were, or were not, the Books of the Wang Pung firm, and also for a Jury to decide whether or not the Wang Fung firm had drawn the Bills in question through their Agents and negotiated
the same to the Bank.
Action No. 219 of 1907. In August, 1908.
Mr. Chu Tak Loong against the China Navigation Compan
and Messrs. Butterfield and Swire. The writ was endorsed for $10,833 in
possession
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.