It. K Quily Press of 11/4/11
SUPREME COURT.
Monday, April 10th.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR FRANCIS PIGGOTT (CHIEF JUSTICE).
TATEM 9. 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 plaintiffs 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 defendant was represented by Mr. Eldon Potter, who was instructed by Mr. C. E. FL. Beavis (of Messrs. Wilkinsou & Grist).
You told us that on November 17th, 1904, you paid in $143.807-No. 1 account or No. 2.
No. 1 account? You paid in $143.80 and you believe they were cross cheques on the Butchery F --I could only say I believe so. I don't know. On that account you paid out $120 next day ---Yos.
We have obtained a copy from the bank and there are apparently three cheques bearing three names-Jones, Clarett and Moss ? Yes.
Is Clarett the name of a person ?--Yes. He was employed at the Electric Light Company-- W. E. Clarett.
Looking at these names, can you say they were Hongkong Batchery's account My lord, I remember that they were. Clarett's name brings it to my recollection. Clarett obtained goods and paid cheques to the Butchery. I cannot follow the other names.
Ilia Lo dship-That bears out the sugges tion that the $120 and the $150 made up 8143.80 and Mr. Howell's private account, leaving 12 cents over.
Mr. Siudo- quite agres. Unfortunately owing to a mistake we have not had all the bank slips. In this mutter we have not received the assistance we might reasonably expect. They hare the dates.
Witness was next examined with respect to the payments in made to the Butchery company. One was marked Armstrong, which was not to Butchery account, but was for goods supplied, butter imported on behalf of the Butchery. There was a loss on that shipment. They did not claim on the insurers or shippers, but something was done through Johnson, Witness explained the letter he wrote to Johnson was to enabla him to obtain his commission. He affirmed that the letter was not an order on behalf of the Butchery, although Johnson had previously supplied goods to the Butchery. He added a code so as to make the matter look like a propor business matter. Counsel questioned witness with regard to an advertisement referring to the arrival of the butter mentioned.
Do you still assert that your letter was a pro forma order not intended to be carried out on beltalf of the Butchery ?--I do.
It was merely a letter to enable Johnson 10 get an illicit five per cent, commission-To get a commission.
An improper five per cent, commission-Not an improper commission. He was the man who was giving the order and was justly entitled to the commission.
HisLrilship-This was not a real transaction? Mr. Slade -Is that what you say?-I don't know what transactions took place between Johnson and Tang Kee with reference butter.
to
The next iten in your banking account is $62.17 on January 6th, which from the paying
in slips appears to have been made up of three cheques drawn on Doberok, Cannell and Francis. Were they payments on the Butchery ac- counts?-They would be cheques handed over to me by Young Chung in payment of commission to him for the Butchery. He would ask tae to cash thera.
Witness was then questioned with regard to entries of commission paid to Young Chung and stated the book was not kept properly by Tatem, otherwise it would have explained itself.
Witness, questioned as to certain cheques which he had paid into the bank, said he could not tell what they were.
You had all the Butchery books at your house at that time?--What time?
Jannary, 1897 P-No, a short time after the Butchery was closed. I took everything down to my house to have the books made up.
At this time when these payments were being made you had the Butchery books in your house They were under my charge in as rench as I bad handed them over to Barker to make up a proper balance-sheet. He was work- ing in my house.
Witness in the course of further examination said that Mr. Barker must have made a mistake in a certain account.
Yon mean to say that although this was being done in your bonse by Barker, who was employed by you, he did not inquire from you on occasions of difficulty ?--I cannot remember, He would be there in the day time and I would be away.
I think you told me that work was done in the evening. You told us he was employed by the Dook Company and worked at the accounts in the evening-He was formerly employed in the docks at Aberdeen and used to drop in to my house casually.
Then this item in the stores account is wrongly stated P-Apparently so.
Counsel said he could not get to the bottom of these accounts and he would endeavour to get wituess to elucidate the account which he had given Tatem as showing his position with regard to the Hongkong Butchery.
}
E
*
What does the entry, to sundries and cash account, mean -The total amount of money received from all sources including capital.
139
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.