1928-02-08 — Page 12

HENRY HEATH

zavi (ME Transit DYLANS OF HAT MAKINTI

Quite naturally, the man who knows that appearance does count selects' HENRY HEATH Hat with the certainty that by so doing he secures advantage of style, quality and durability,

NEWEST LONDON STYLES NOW SHOWING.

Mackintosh's

MEN'S WEAR SPECIALISTS Alexandra Building.

Des Voeux Road.

DAIRY FARM NEWS.

GAME

REDUCED PRICES.

but

QUALITY MAINTAINED

COCK PHEASANTS

HEN

WILD DUCK

PIGEONS

SNIPE

TEAL

ORDER

$1.35 each

*$1.00

$1.00

40

.35

.30.

EARLY."

THE DAIRY FARM, ICË & COLD STORAGE CO., LTD.

RIGAUD, 16 RUE DE LA PAIX, PARIS

NEW STOCK, OF FRENCH PERFUMES.

"UN AIR Emraone"

LAST

JUST ARRIVED.

"UN AIR EMBAUME'

Grand Model

AGENTS IN HONG KONo:

VICENTE ATIENZA & Co.

No. 54, NATHAN ROAD, KOWLOON, '

TEL. K. 155.

4 DAYS

OF

WHITEAWAYS

SALE

ALL

REMNANTS & ODDMENTS

MUST BE CLEARED

REGARDLESS OF COST.

Sale Ends Positively Sat., Feb. 11th.

DO NOT BE TOO LATE.

WHITEAWAY, LAIDLAW & CO., LTD.

HONG KONG

THE HONG KONG DAILY PRESS. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8th, 1928.

ARCHITECT'S CLAIM FOR FEES.

DIRECT CONFLICT OF EVIDENCE.

JUDGE RESERVES HIS DECISION.

A VERY DISAGREEABLE CASE."

The Chief Justice (Sir Henry Gollan) reserved judgment yes: terday in the case in which Mr. E. D. Shank, managing director of the Hong Kong Excavation, Pile Driving and Construction Com- pany, claims $9.751 for architectural services from Louie Lung. 9. Connaught Road,

The claim is in respect of the plans, etc., drawn up in 1994 for 30 houses at Kowloon. Plaintif" contends that the houses were projected during the boom hat when the slump came defendant wished to abandon the enterprise and to evade payment for ser vicea already rendered.

Mr. C. G. Alabaster, K.C. (in- structed by Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist) is for the plaintiff and Mr F. C. Jenkin (instructed by Messrs. Hastings, Dennys and Bowley) for the defendant.

Interpreter's Evidence."

Defendant's Evidence,

examined

by

The defendant, Mr. Jenkin, agreed that a claim for 8000 for the conversion of the land into a building lot was receiv. ed by him. He paid this amount to Lam Ming Fan and received recript from Mr. E. Shank,

A

cor

A Mr. Edwards, mentioned on Monday as having acted as inter-It was not true, defendant sa

that he received

elain. preter at an alleged interview when 8,731.00 from Mr. E. D. Shank ab defendant is said to have nilmittel the same time as the other. (This that he did not want to go on with being two per cent. on the ct the building, was called for the price of an houses for work done.) Flaintiff.

Apart from n tter from Mostra,

Witness gave his name as Sidney Wilkinson and Grist in October, Woodruff, and said he was formerly 1925, asking for payment of 29,751,00 known as Edwards. He was in the he had not received any other de employ of Mr. Shank in 1924 and | mand from plaintiff, either by letter 1025, Recalling an interview when or message. When he was made Mr. Carl Shank, the defendant, aware of this demand by Lim Ming and he believed, Mr. Foster Fan, who interpreted the contents Turner were present. bo said of the solicitors' letter to him, de that it took place early in fendant immediately consulted his 1025,

Defendant was told that solicitors, Messrs. Hastings, Dennys the plans had been prepared and Bowley, giving them instru and he said he wanted some alterations to reply to Messrs. Wilkinson tions made. Mr. Shank told him and Grist.

that anything he wanted done could It was his intention to build 18 be done. As to fees, there was to 20 houses on each side of the some talk about a reduction and lot in question, but he told Lam witness thought it was agreed that that he would give' instructions as some reduction should be made to the details when the plans were

Witness said, in answer to Mr. shown to him. Jenkin that after leaving the employ of Mr. Shank he worked with Mr. J. E. Hancock for a time and later studied for the law. He did not have a tutor but studied American books. Pressed by Mr. Jenkin witness said he could not remember the title of any, one of

his inspection for a matter of six ( weeks, and neither had Lam men- tioned the 'matter to him.

Defendant was further questioned about his alleged presence in the office of plaintiff. Although four witnesses had stated he had been there, he denied over having attend i ed at the times mentioned. He had not been there, and whether the evidence of the witnesses were true or not, he could not say.

His Lordship intimated to defend- ant that he must not play with the Court, and on being asked the ques- tion a second time, defendant re- plied that the evidence of the four witnesses' referred to was not true. In further answer to Mr. Alabas- tar, defendant stated he was the treasurer of the Kowloon Motor 'Bus Etapany, and that Lam Wing Fan was also employed there, and had been for several years. At the same time he was employed by Mr. Shaak. Defendant said that Lam had further been his (defendant's) secretary, a position he had held for several years.

4

K. M. A.

CERAMIC & REFRACTORY PRODUCTS

CLINKER, PAVING BUILDING

& FIRE- -BRICKS

די

STONE-

-WARE

PIPES &

GLAZED TILES

Ask for our Nilustrated Catalogue-Compare our Prices and inspect our wide Range of Samples THE KAILAN MINING ADMINISTRATION DOOWELL & CO., LTD., Agents, Hong Kong.

CLOSING ADDRESSES. Mr. Jenkin, addressing the Court said that he had no doubt but that I employed Lara as his agenta Lordship would be invited to in all his contracts and business¦ matters, but the latter had no bad for plantiff in this case on the power to sign agreements, etc. Heater or the interview which was referred to finishing, and the slump and general urch, 123, is thought His Loed.

the building boom, supposco to strike of 1995 precluding building ship must decide the case mainly

on this alleged micrview. being carried on to any extent.

(Deretung was alleged to have agreed to the patte no this inter-

||

have taken

Diaco 10

com

MISTRESS AND AMAH.

CLAIM FOR WAGES,

DEDUCTION FOR BREAKAGES NOT UPHELD.

As the Summary Court yester- day, before. Mr. Justice J. R. Wood, the European mistress of in nuiah was sued by the latter in respect of wages.

The amah claimed the sum of 839, the balance of wages due, and costs, from Mrs L. R. Castellian, of 2, work done by the amah Queen's Road Central. The claim

from November 1st, 1927, to Janu- 10th, 1923 at the rate of $1 a day for sewing.

yawa, or nearly 3 years ago. Counsel, commented on the delay. His Lordship questioned the in bringing the case to Court, and plaintiff to see if the claim could added that there had been ex- be settled, but without result and treme datoriness, to use a mila plaintiff, proceeded to give evid- phrase only," Plaintif had not ence. She stated that she was en- called very important witnesses inployed by Mrs. Castellian

wash and sew amah at 81 a day.

Plaintiff denied, in answer to Mrs. Castellian, that she agreed to pay for breakages.

the case.

ду

The Sketch Rejected? Lam Wing Fan, called for the jaw.) defence, said he was formerly em- the Lordship agreed that the ployed by the Hong Kong Con- aleged interview exected both the struction Company, but he left their case for plate and for the de service in October, 1025, He knew tence, anu remarked, that it ap defendant, and he recollected the "peared to him to be the crux of sketches that Mr. Shank prepared; ne whose cusC.V- in respect of Kowloon Lot No. 1348. | Mr. Jenkin emphasised that plain

A sketch plan was prepared for tif and his witnesses bou the work in September, 124, and into court relying entirely on their it was handed to him by draughts recollections of what took place min. Witness took it to Mr. Louie Lung, and the latter asked him! to return it and to submit further sketches for his approval.

Witness did not get a fresh sketch "plan, but later he took a complete set of aux print drawings. That was sometime in January, 1925.

Defendant immediately said that

A Grave Allogation. they were not what he had order. ed. Witness returned-them to the was very coursext in his evidence, He suggested that Mr. Edwards office and told Mr. Foster Turner and that be was confused as a re- Mr. Turner said that defendant had

aust of a conversation with Messrs. affirmed the sketch, and that thanks that morning. Really, con- the drawings were done on the

She objected to paying the approved aketch. The draughtsman had no real recolection

Lanued Jane Jonkin, Air. Edwards amount claimed, because five knives" left the concern in November, 1994,

of what had disappeared and the amah bad was purported to have taken place broken & vieo in front of a door In reply to Mr. Alabaster, wit

at the terview. ite had neks said he was paid by the Motor

seu through which the mah was for- into the error of saying he was bidden to go: Bus Company, and was not, a private secretary of defendant. Hetween print and defendant, and interpreter A one ruterview be- intendused the defendant to plain not at the other; and that at tas tiff, and he acted between Mr. Enterview on watch the case mainly An intergiew, and he never made. Shank and the defendant with depooded that i was the 10ter Mr. Jenkin: You found your legal arrangements with regard to regard to lees, the defendant preter. studies helped-Yes, to some exchange in the scheme-i.c..

having separate houses, instead of the work mentioned in the Chinese agreeing to pay three per cent, on semi-detached residences,

letter. Defendant denied that he had ever seen Mr. Edwards before.

Cross-Examination.

them.

His Lordship: Do you mean to say that you can't remember a single oric 7-No.

Later he did work for the estate of Mr. Chan Kwong Hing who died on November 13th, 1928. He helped Mr. Bing's elder daughter in her attempts to get letters of adminis

tration.

tent:

He had received no money from the Hing family but continued to live on his own resources. He lived with his mother who assisted him.

Mr. Jenkin: I rut it to you tant

In further reply to Mr. Jenkin, defendant said that he never at tended at the office of plaintiff nor had he had an interview there, Contrary evidence had been given by. Messrs. C. B. Shank, Foster Turner and Edwards. Defendant denied that he had ever been in either Mr. Shank's office or the other offices of the Excavation Com pany since the date of his Chinese letter.

Mr. Jenkia continued to examine defendant as to the alleged inter view of April, 1025, which, it was state Lim was present. De fendant said that he never had such

of

with the Government in March or

to plaintiff's office in connection with the building, which, it was agreed, should take place within two years from the completion of conversion.

- The Defence Operied. Mr. Jenkin submitted that he had no case, to answer. Mi. E. D. Shank had admitted that unless the

He admitted that he wrote agree- sketch plans were approved be would have had no warrant or ing to pay plaintiff three per cent authority to do the work he was of the building cost, and engaging claiming. He was unable to pro him as an architect. The whole duce a written authority or sketch building was supposed to be cum- rian beenuse the latter was lost. plated in'two years. (It was stated

deny that the amah worked for 39 days

The defendant said she did not.

judgment against Mra Castellian His Lordship said he must give for the amount claimed and coste

Defendant objected to paying the extra fees, whereupors his Lordship said she had better save trouble and”. Edwarda bad been present at boumah into Court.

Sr. Alabaster interposed that Mr. pay the amount awarded to the interviews, one us interpreter while Mrs. Castellian: Will you please sion when he visited the site heat the other be only brought tell her cob to come into my bouse

again?

Witness stated that on one ocen-

found that there was only one peg on it, although, it had been stated to him that the whole site was com pletely pickesed. He asked plain matter, with a view to getting it tiff to approach the P.WD, on the

some plans. He had spoken of the two interviews, and that was a cer-

tain amount of evidenon

His Lordship agreed that there was a certain amount of evidence, but added that the auggestion made

by Mr. Jenzin was a grave mega- What Mr. Ed- tion, namely that wards, had said in eyacuce, he ha been prompted to say, and that he had fallen into the error of talk ng about something at one inter- vier when he was not acting as

His Lordship: Yes, if you will pay the amount into Court.

to get rid of her. She has been a Mrs. Castellian: I shall be glad

tyrant.

His Lordship accepted this, but pointed out that nothing was done by defendant from October, 1924, to' October, 1925, to bring matters to

head:

1

He had not called Lum, the inter- in a later stage of the case that def-a-Innt to come to the office at obvious that the man had no recal- denying receiving any demands for

preter who was supposed to have interpreted regarding the plans, and he had failed to bring proof of the sketch plans.

His Lordship held that there was a case to answer and Mr. Jenkin continued.

plaintiff subsequently agreed to re- dare the payment to two per cent); Defendant continued that he bad nerer approved of any of the plans, and in reply to Mr. Alabaster said that ho told Lam to tell plaintiff that time was getting ón.

Did you tell defendant anything about it at all at that time I told him a more detailed sketched was being prepared.

Did you tell him to come to the

office 1-No.

·

"Is it conceivable," asked Mr. Alabaster, "that the letters would have been written and not despatch-

Mr. Alabaster proceeded to cross- the interview with regard to the examine defendant, whe said that plans and fees did not take placement to the office of Mr. Shank It take place.

did tune that your evidence is before he wrote his Chincter On that occasion asked Mr. the result of a suggestion made to Shank to turn the agricultural land completed. you this morning 1-No.

Referring to the plans, witness And that you acceded to that into building land,

Referring to the completion of said that in October, 1994, only suggestion-I did not accede to the conversion, defendant said he plans of clevation and flooring were any suggestion...

being prepared, Mr. Alabaster briefly re-examined signed the necessary agreements

Mr. Alabaster: Did you tell de and then intimated that he had no

April, 1924, but he had never been fendant about that I-Witness: No. interpreter. further evidence to call.

Why not?-Bemuse I was under

air: Jenkin further suggested that

Mr. Jenkin replied that the the impression that the draughts after a lapse of two years : slump covered the whole of that man had only been preparing de- Edwards had little or no recollec- period, and the general strike inter- non of the interview and what took yened in 1925, and even if defen- tailed sketch plans.

Did you tell defendant anything place, until that morning when he dant had wanted to build during at all about it 7--No.

waa prompted. Unfortunately his the latter part of 1025 he would Did defendant never, send any attention had been called to the, have been unable to do so. letter or message to you asking you to ask defendant to come and see His Lordship whether this vitai

wrong interview. Mr. Jenkin asked MR. ALABSTER REPLIES. the plans --No.

witness's evidence was not very Alabaster said it was quite easy to Replying to Mr. Jenkin, Mr. You were never instructed to ask unsatisfactory? He though it was understand that defendant by all 1-No.

lection of the matter until that payment, or a solicitors letter morning.

His Lordship again commented would avoid paying the bill.

asking for the money, thought ho on the gravity of this suggestion that alr, Edwards had had his evidence put into his head."

Mr. Jenkin suggested that it was Witness was questioned by Mrather strange that Lain had not especially when there was a The sketch plans, defendant claim- In reply to His Lordship, defend- ed, were not submitted to him by ant said that the agricultural land Alabaster as to whether he typed been called by plaintiff to give man in the office who saw defendant. daily. Was it going to be said that the defendant and had introduced four lots, and the land contained and added that he could suggest ro onus was on plaintiff to call him. Least of it."

The latter was a friend of cost him approximately $25,000 for two particular letters to defendant evidence.

plaintiff's witnesses had commit- His Lordship remarked that the ted deliberate perjury, to say the for plaintif. He said he did not. an area of 00,000 square feet. Ho reason why he did not, as he had but considering the The defendant said when he first paid 812,180 to the Government as typed all the other correspondence, which existed between Lam and the valuation of the work, Counsel relationship There had been no question of saw the plans that he wanted a conversion money, this bringing the or why plaintiff did not let him defendant, he thought plaintiff had went on, or a suggestion that the single staircase for every twa total cost-up to 837,107,

exero.sed discretion in not eating charge made for the work was un. houses and asked that the plans It was stated that the whole of know anything about these letters.

Denials. he submitted to him later with that that amount, with the exception of

reasonable. All witnesses spoke to Referring to the delay in bring the best of thein recollection of alteration. They were never the conversion money ($12,150) In answer to another question, mitted to him and he saw no others. would be able to be forfeited, witnes that when

what transpired, but they were The next reference to plans was the building had not taken place was presented with a demand for Jenkin said that proceedings were all definite that two interviews when the working plans were taken within the stipulated time. payment be said that he would pay begun in 1926, and it was the fault in fact take place in the year in round two months later by Lum Defendant added that it was his 9500, but refused to pay the 80,000 defendant that the action was question The defendant refused to have any intention to erect 38 to 40 houses, claim, stating that he had not not taken into Court before. As's.

His Lordship asked for the real- matter of fact, defendant had apson of the delay in bringing the thing to do with them because ho to be let out to tenants, except ordered so much. had not been the revised sketch some which would be accupied by

Mr. Alabaster suggested that piled for a summens for the disease into Court, and Mr.. Alabaster plan.

to his fokia. He was required to spend defendant care seo plaintiff missal of the action.

said that witnesses had been absent.“ · Continuing, counsel said that the $128,000 on the land within the two about Maren, 1825, and that at this lost, Gite referred to was now in the Colony for months at a time, Mr. Jenkin submitted that the Some of them had been away from defendant had been consistent in years stipulated.

mecting witness acted as inter- Court, with the exception of the and it had been very difficult to get. rejecting the working charge and Questioned by Mr. Alabaster 'na when the accounts were sent in had to plans, defendant contended that Witness denied that he acted as sketch plans mentioned. In fact,

"The delay was no evidence of_a“ paid the conversion charge but had when he was brought some colour interpreter. He did not remember he added, the whole file, had not then all together at the same time. refused to have anything to do with cd plans by Lam he told him that any meeting, because during the been lost. They might no enquire fraudulent daim having been inade

He had not ordered these to be year 1925 defendant never get the production of theer might have been proceeded with in a very the charge for the plans.

where the sketch plans went, for He admitted that the claim had Defendant denied absolutely the prepared, but had only asked for plaintiff's office.

Mr. Alabaster: I put it to you thrown some light on the case for leisurely way, but that was all. 'interview of March, 1925, in which sketches to select from.

it was alleged there was some talk

His Lordship: In the circum There followed questions regard- that you know such a meeting did the plaintiff.

His Lordship remarked that there! of a reduction of fen,

ing. certain correspondence, defend take place and that you did act as

was a certain amount of delay due stances I think I had better very His Lordship pointed out that ant denying that he received a interpreter, and that when you may

carefully read over the evidence MrFoster Turner-and-MC-B-number of letters mentioned. you did not you are swing some Mr Iankin replied that defendant gain, but it is a very, "disagree Shank spoke definitely of the inter- He said that when he enquired thing which you know is deliberate could not do anything to bring

able case. view. They gave details of it and about the plans ho had asked plain- ly untrue!

matters to a head until the plans there could be no mistake about it tiff to prepare Lam told him they Witness: No. Tacre Wa no

were finally completed, and the one way or the other.

were not quite ready. He had not meeting.

Lum.

him to Mr. Shank

preter.

Lam.

to the defendant.......

Mr. JenkinNone whatever, my received as seen a letter stating This concluded the care for the recessary alterations made to them.

that the plans had been waiting for defence,

Lord.

(Continued on next Column.)

ed judgment

His Lordship accordingly reserv- Mr. Jenkin mentioned that he re Tetted the disagreeable Blement of the case as much as anyone did.