1923-07-05 — Page 4

JOHN 1.

THORNYCROFT

AND CO., LTD.

SHIPBUILDERS AND

ENGINEERS

London, Southampton and Basingstoks?

THE HONGKONG DAILY PRESS, THURSDAY, JULY 5rr, 1923

PASSENGER AND CARGO VESSELS OF ALL TYPES UP TO 6,000 TONS) OCEAN-GOING TUGS, MOTOR BOATS (SEA OR RIVER) UP TO 50 KNOTS..

TURBINES AND RECIPROCATING MACHINERY AND PROPELLERS MARINE AND STATIONARY OIL ENGINES

8 TO 90 B.H.P. MOTOR VEHICLES 2 TO 6 TONS. WATER TUBE BOILERS,

Fos Quotation, AFELT-

ROBERT DOLLAR BUILDING,

SHANGHAI.

Summit Collars

For Discerning Men.

FINE QUALITY-LONG WEARING PERFECT FITTING IN EVERY WAY SATISFACTORY."

NEW STOCK JUST RECEIVED: ALL SHAPES $7.00 PER DOZEN.

MACKINTOSH

&CO. LTD.

Men's Wear Specialists.

Alexandra Building-

Des Voeux Road.

.

YEE SANG FAT CO.

BARGAIN

BARCAIN SALE

In All Departments.

TO-DAY!

BARGAIN

Come and See Our Displays. "Let

the Merchandise Speak for Itself

BARGAIN

BARGAIN

ELECTRO AUTOMATE

No Refills

Batteries or

Accumulators.

Hand Size Watchman's

Size

$10 $15

HONOKONG HOTEL CO.

1 ELECTRICAL DEPI,

PEDDAR ST.

Inexhaustible Bright Light

BRUNSWICK

PHONOGRAPHS & RECORDS.

Musical Instruments,

Slazenger's Tennis

Racquets & Balls

BRUNSWICK STUDIO.

17, ICE HOUSE STREET.

DISPUTED 'FLOUR, CONTRACTS: MOLLER & CO. SUED: MR. T. ORTON CITED AS THIRD PARTY,

...

Continuing witness said that towards the end of November there were certain} rumours about Mayer & Co, and he was

PEAK TRAM PASSENGER SUMMONED

And afterwards you sent down to Hong Mr. Corbett: All in the Company's kong for Mr. Xavier, the Scorstary of name --Yes, the Company, to come up 1-1 communi-

REFUSED TO PAY HIS FARE. pated with the offier officially for them to end Mr. Xavier up.

Mr, D. Martyn, an engineer of the A breach of contract ease in which

Did My Xavier immediately come to seat out by Mr. Orton to make enquiries Public Works Department, was summoned Muller & Co., Ltd... of Hongkong. were Shanghai-No, not innwiliately; later as to their accuracy. On 25th January hy the Peak Tramway Company at the the lefendants and Me. Thomas Orton, he came.

¦ telegram arrived at the office from Shang- Magistracy yysterday morning för travel- late Manager of the Firm in Hongkong Dal be give you any reason for nothai asking the witness to proceed to ling on the Penk tram sad refusing to and now of Messrs. Stephens and Co,coming immediately —Yes, he said Mr. Shanghai,

pay the legni fure on June 15th.

Mr. of 18, Queen's Road Central, was cited Orton would not let him go. I remitted Mr. Corbett ; Did you immediately [C. D. Melbourne occupied, the Benche as third party was heard before His his fare for the journey figwell.

proceed there—I had some difficulty in Mr. H. G. Macniatura, solicitor, who Honour the Paine Judge (Mr. Justice What did Mr. Xavier tell you regarding getting away.

apprared on behalf of the Tramway Co., Gomperts) in the Summary Court, yester-|the contr" "cts 1~He' said that several flour Did Mr. Orton give you any reason stated that Mr. Martyn boarded a nov• day.

{contracts had been entered into by the He said the books were not balanerd. I stop tram at the Lower Station, with his The plaintiffs in the case were the Man firm

told him they were all right except for a dog. The fact that it was a non-stop ear Fat Wo firin. They claim the sum of Dil Mr. Xavier tell you anything else small mistake which occurred before my was notified by an electric sign, and on gora, being damages sustained by, reasons that nothing appeared in the time,

the board placed outside of the tram of a breach of contract over the sale and Company's barks, and when I came down

Witness Knally went to Shanghai on itself. The defendant, however, wished to delivery to the plaintiffs of 1,000 bags of here I found that this was porrvet,

February 3rd, and told Mr. Moller all he go only to Bowen Road, and when thư flour. The defendant firm pleaded that¦ Did you see Mr. Orton when you came" know,

İconductor asked for his fare he paid ten' the claim should be indemnified by Mr down in February -Yes.

!: Cross-examined by Mr. Arculli, witness cents for himself, and ten cents for the Thomas Orton of the firm of Messrs. H. Did you say anything to him ---I drew said the contract entered into with Mayer dog. However, the subject of this summong Stephens & Co. of Hongkong and a former his attration to an evendraw account & Co for the 100 tons of flour was lay in Mr. Martyn's action after the car member of the defendant Company in when the books were audited by Mosers, signed by Mr. Orton. All the contracts reached the Peak. He gos off, and then Hongkong against all liability in respect Percy Smith. Seth and Fleming. I drew were kept in the office and there was no Femounted. The tram left for its down- of the contract or in breach thereof on attention to a certain four venture ne-secrecy about them.

wurd journey,this time to stop at all the ground, that the contract, although count which was upen at the time of the;

Mr. S. H. Ross, of Messrs. Percy stations, and again the conductor came

t

Account

}

the Directors'

minde out in the name of the defendang elosing of the bocks so as to cagerail 3. Smith Seth and Fleming, said that round for the fares. He asked - Mr. Company was in a fact made by Thomas Orton's personal overdraft in the Com- he was presentat

On that Martyn for his fare, and that gentleman Orton on his own acount.

pany's money. I showed where this flour meeting held on March 30th.. M. C. H. Lyson appeared for the plain-

where the occasion sqmething was said about flour, refused. Furthermore, he became abusive closed, and Wдя tiffs, Mr. E. G. Corbett represented the debit account was retransferred to the Mr. Moller on that occasion stating that and used insulting language referring to defendant firm, and Mr. A. el Arculi overdraft. As a matter of fact Mr. Sell it was outside the firm's business. Mr. the Company. When the tram stopped at Orton replied to the effect that what he Bowen Road he alighted without having appared for Mr. Thomas Orton.

would not pass that transter.

had done was done after the firm's time; puid his fare. The Company felt that the what he had done was done afters only course they could take would be to o'clock. Mr. Moller contended that it prosente. It wne & preposterous claim could not "have been done after 5 pm to put forward that he was entitled to

take the Peak tram, knowing it was non stop ear to the Peak, to go the whole

Mr Esson said that on 13th November

Did. Mr. Orton deny the allegations of last year the plaintiffs entered into a No, they were in black and white. contract with the defendants for the pur-

He didn't deny it-N6g chase of 1.000 bags of flour, which was Did you ask why he should tell you al that it must have been alone in the to be of a certain brand at the price of a lie when he was in Shanghai-He said firm's time. Mr. Moller did not approve $230 per bag for December and January he did not like to tell me, but he said delivery: This contract 312

carried he would take over the responsibility and of Mr. Orton's action, and told him so. through a broker, named Chu Hing Sing Clear them himself said he would and the contract was signed by Mr transfer them back to his necount. He Thomas Orton as Manager of Moller & also invitioord that further contracts had Co. (Hongkong), Ltd. He understood ben transferred to Mayer & Co. om that Mr. Corbett du

dispute of them had been cancelled and some fability to the plaintiffs, but they clair Chinesi has refused to accept a transfer ed that Mr. Orton had no authority to of their contracts to Mayer, binil the firm. That being the case he!

Did you ask Mr. Orton to give you did not propose to weary his Lordship

guarantee that he wouki be responsible 1-- with further details of the case and on the Yes, I did. He said he would. facts hy was entitled to demand judge Iment."

Mr. Corbett admitted Mr. Lyson'

statement to be correct and went on, to)

!

distance, and then come down again as.

MR." ORTON IN THE BOX.

far as Bowen Road, without paying the Mr. Thomas Orton said he had been additional fare. Managing Director of Moller & Co. Mr. Martyn agreed that the bare facts (Hongkong), Ltd., from the 8th October, of the case as put by Mr. Macnamara were 1921 to March 2nd. 1923, when he re-correct, but said he refuse to pay the fare sigard. During that time he entered into breause he thought he in the right. a contract in the name of Moller & Co. He stated that he had been feeling ill on with the plaintiff (the Man Fat Wo that particular morning, and received. Firm).

permission to leave the office before the Mr. Areni: Did you know if your firatifin hour. When he got oa to the car had done Hour business before 1-Yra, ba-he did not noties that it was a non-stop

fore I was manager,

tram, and he paid his fare only as far "His Lordship: But from your personal as Bowen Rand. He considered at the knowledge did you know 1-Only by what time that as the Company had sold him a I have seen from the backs of the firm. ticket to Bowen Rond that it ther

Witness went on to say that the con- fere contracted to take him to Bowen tracts were kept in the Company's Office Road without any extra charges. When and seen by Mr. Xavier and Mr. Hum, he got out of the car at the Park Station Witness went on to say that before he a Chinese clerk in the office. On the 27th he did so only in order to let other left for Shanghai a meeting of the October he wrote to Mr. Malier at Shang-passengers get out. "He admitted that on directors of Moller & Co. (Hongkong) was hai, enclosing a sole agency agreement for the way down the geond time he toll tho held and at that meeting the subject of Bour. Witures, in the letter, asked Mr. conductor that he had is "strong objreting flour contracts was discussed. A report

Witness then said that before, he left for Shanghai Mr. Orton came to him on the Empress boat and handed him Letter

say that they could not deny responsibility Asked to produce the letter Mr. Corbett as regards the outside world, but they said it was not on the file, and Mr. Moller! said that Mr. Orton was able and that said be. felt certain, he would be able to he should indemnify the clair on the produce it as a later stage. ground that, in the first place, he had no authority to make the contract and, in the second place, that it was made

on his own behalf.

In reply to his Lordship, Mr. Arenli said that his client agreed to the making of the contracts, bat he contended that they were made on behalf on the Com

pany.

His Lordship said, the point at issue appeared to be whether or not the de- fendants or the third party were liable.

on

of the nesting was in the ainute book: Moller if he would like to take up the to being robbed." He thought, though, that (produced in Court) which also contained sole agency with him, cae of the terms if the Company took exception to what the names of those present...

of which was that they would have to put he had said they should have written to him; Cross-examined by Mr. Areulli, the witness" said that there was a provision up $30,000. Nothing came of the pro- he did not dream that they would take in the Company's articles enabling the posal. When he was in Shanghai in out a summons. He asked his Worship firm to carry on business, as merchants Decoraber Mr. Maller was very busy, his whether he thought it likely that a civil- and commission agents among other wife was in hospital, and Mr. Afoller used servant in his position would attempt to things. He also admited that the Bour contracts were made during the period of to go see her about three times a day; the Mr. Orton's managership.

result was that they had very little time Mr. Arculli: Mr. Orton's predecessor to discuss the contracts, and Mr. Molier was Mr. Williamson -Yes.

thirty-five cents! defraud the Tramway Company of a mere

Mr. Macnamara said the Company con-

MK "MOLLER'S EVIDENCE.

xidered that, after the way Mr. Martyn Mr. Nils Eric Ameton Moller, sworn,

And Mr. Williateson, did he deal is told him that as they were making such had acted, it was up to him to get inte Raid that he was a permanent director

was prepared to make an apology, and flour. Not to my knowledge.

good profits it would be a pity to cancel communication with them. If, however, he of the firm of Moller & Co. (Hongkong);

You gave Mr. Orton a general power them. Witness told hini he preferred to admit that he was in the wrong, ther

cancel them because, before leaving Shane would be prepared to withdraw the sum Ltd. The Compans was registered about of attorney?-Yes..

When Mr. Orton went you that letter of hai, he had inade enquiries about Mayer mons. T four years ago, and the business carried

At the suggestion of his Worship Mr. was shipping. The Company had the 27th October, 1992, he enclosed an and then as a matter of fact witness men-

tioned, Mr. Mayer agreed to take over Macnamara held a short conferanos with agreement 7-Yes, never dealt in four or other merchandise, That was a proposed agreement, never the contracts and pay the Chinese dealers the defendant, and Mr. Martyn went back except, coal. He resided in Shangbai entered into and Mr. Ortou asked you if 10 cents damages, but that agreement was to the witness-box and apologised to the

Witness said nothing Company, and agreed to pay the fare and did nrst look after the affairs of the sou would join in -He wrote that in the never fulfilled.

The summons was accordingly with Company in Hongkong. Mr. Orten had letter and I said I would not enter into about being personally responsible, but charge. He was sent down from Shangany agreement until I came down to he said he would try and clear the con- drawn.

"Hongkong.

tracts for the Company. With regard to hai in December, 1921. He did not give

You have seen the contracts-I have the account queried by Mr. Seth, wit him any instructions when he sent him t

Mr. Ortun, re-called, said that the down be he was given the power of seen absolutely nothing at all, nothingness explained that the money (88,000) was advanced to Mr. Mayer in connection attorney in Hongkang. Frem time to whatever, time Mr. Orton made reports to the firm Your solicitor has then I don't know, with the proposed agency. That agency circular regarding the four was not sint-

came down here the other day and I meant that soller & Co would have full cut by him. He knew nothing about it.

control of the Argentine flour, and that He did not circularie any firms.

In reply to further questions by his. have seen absolutely nothing.

And when you mentioned the contracts Mayer & Co. cound not sell to anyone. him a letter in which he mentioned some chem back to Mayer Yes.

pany's funds. When Mr. Moller replied to Mayer & Co. belonged to the Firm thing about dealing in flour (he letter"

Witness went on to say that Mr. Orton that he did not want to have anything to The agency was entirely his own aflair

in Shanghai. He used to send monthly accounts and monthly shipping returns

On October 27th last year Mr. Orton set he said he was trying his best to transfer else. The money came out of the Com Lordship, witness said the $6,000 advanced

in question was produced and placed be was " thoroughly ashamed about the ex- do with the proposition, witness took over and bad nothing to do with Moller'

fore his Lordship),

COMPANY'S SECRETARY GIVES EVIDENCE.

Moller,

as to how he

Witne

sabl that he knew that Mr. Mr. Corbett: Can you remember the posure in the books," and when witness the personal responsibility on account of williamson had sold flour for the contents of the letter Yes, attached to found that some pages had been taken the agency, which was witness's own

affair. Witness, however, had nothing to Company but when pressed farther ho he thought Mr. Williamson had actel that letter there was a copy of a supposed out of the books he was" astonished."

do with the contracts. Witness was pre-only as agent for a carge of flour carried: contract that Mr. Orton was personally entering into with Mayer & Co. It was Mt. V. L. Xavier, Secretary to Hollerent at the meeting of Directors, when in one of their ships. As to why the con- between Mr. Orton and Mt. Mayer. & Co. (Hongkong). Ltd., told the Court there was a discussion about the flour tracts were not entered in the books. contracts. Witness said he was willing to witness said it was not usual to make any Was there anything is that contract, that the first be had heard of the flour canor the contracts, but he was not per entry until the contracts had been com regarding Moller & Co. 1-No.

transactions was about the end of August,

peted. He denied Mr. Moller' nesort inn Witness said be considered a letter and, 1999, when Mr. Orton told him he had sonal y responsible.

His Lordship put it to Mr. Orton that that he (witness) had said to him whilst asked by Mr. Corbett as to what action the chance of becoming the sole agent for his ease was that as managing director of in Shanghai that he had we entered fat he took in the matter. replied that be a certain brand of Argentine flour Hether he considered it within his powers any contracta wrote to Mr. Orton on the 10th November. did not know then whether Mr. Orton was to make contracts for four on behalf of Asked by his In this letter he told him to "hold off acting on behalf of the firm or not. At the Company These contracts were cli- accounted for the record in the minute until he came down to Hongkong. He any rate they circulated a numity of tered into in the name of Moller & Co.

book, witness (after examining the minute also pointed out the dangers of the four British and Chinese firms, stating that Witness agreed, explaining that that hooky said that there was no report of his business having knowledge of the exper- they were in a position to sell, flour at a was to as regards the contracts, but the reply to the allegations made by Mr. ivace of Mr. Rennie and the latter's very reasonable figure. Some of the firms agency was his own personal affair.

he would indicated that Lordship death.

His Lordship: When that fell through His replied and others did not Towards the The letter referred to was produced and end of August Mr Orton commenced his you had an advance out of the monies of like to see the Company's power of

atraer handel to Mr. Orton. first transaction in flour and on the 18th, the Company? placed before the Court. Orton September the first contract was entered

made Mr.

Orton That way

Mr. Eoss, recalled, gave further details Continuing, witness said that came to Shanghai in December in connec upon. This was refore Mr. Orten had The case was adjourned until the after of the Director meeting and said that tion with other business, including a written to Mr. Moller in Shanghai. One nom, for production of the letter referred he was certain as to what was said at the

meeting matter which was nader arbitration,

day Mr Orton brought a contract issued to by Mr. Moller, which had not been tindeed, and for the purpose of calling

Xavier also ro-called explained the Asked by Mr. Corbett if he was very by Mayer & Co. for the sale of 100 tons Bre Williamson, the Company's former entries in the ledger.

Court) much worried with other business affairs

adressing Mr. at the time of. Mr. Orton's visit, the wit of flour and after that several other cou- menager in Hongkong, with view to arter which His Lordaip, adre ness replied that he was.

witness, quiring from Mr. Orton as to looking into the allegation that Mr. Corbett, said that assuming he accepted How long did Mr. Orton stay in whether the contract was taken out by Williamson dealt in flour on behalf of the his case that Mr. Ortos bad conducted this business as his firm's business what Shanghai --One week!

himself or in the name of the Company Resuming after the tiffin interval Mr was the position I Did his power of Did you ask him if he bad made any he was told to enter it in the Company Corbett explained that Mr. Williamson attorney allow him to do ao It was dealings in flour-I did,

name, and he signed a contract as diree could not be found at the moment. He quite clear that before he could do any What did Mr. Orton ay- said he tor of the Company. On October 27th was not in his office. He now produosi thing he would have to see the firm's had done nothing.

Mr. Orton wrote a letter to Shanghai to the letter (the guarantee) which Me power of attorney to Mr. Orton

the You are quite sure he said that which Mr. Moller replied on November Urton had handed to Mr. Mollar on

[709

Tea

Were you satisfied

No,

firm.

20th; after that only about two or three Empress hoạt. contracts were entered into.

(Continned at foot of neat column,),

The case was then adjourned to Monday afternoon next, in order that the necessary document might be produced.