1906-06-09 — Page 3

CLAIM FOR RENT

AND "SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE,"

THE HONGKONG TELEGRAPH SATURDAY JUNE 9 1906.

་

5th inst,

162

Mr. Sharp: How is It you only produce a few odd pages of your chit-book and not the

whole book?

Witness: These are our old books, Mr. Sharp: Oh! I see, then you des trayed the book and preseived only" these slips? -:Witness: My clerk did......

Sir Francis Piggott, Chiel Justice, presiding, and Messrs, Palmer and Turner were selected postscrißt · referred to was a simple oversight under the main roof, and the rest were godowns at the Dafly Press stayed on the premises with your letiér hook; a•d • ut the date of

V

His Honour: I don't think it is relevant, and is not of any importance.

Mr. Sharp: It is relevant as showing that the defendant was changing his attitude, and so it is of minor importance.

for the premises, No. 14, Des Voeux Road. At that interview defendant spoke about his 6nan cial position, and said if witness did not give him some concession he would have to go into and inst.

bankruptcy or leave the Colony. The altera tions had to be carried out under the agree In Original Jurisdiction to-day, His Honour ment, under, the supervision of an architect, He Tung, of "Idlewild," Seymour Road, sued

to carry out the supervision. While the altera Chung Shun Koo, of No. 12, Queen's Road ions were going on witness received a letter Central, for (1) specific performance of an from Messrs. Palmer and Turner saying that agreement of lease, and (2) the recovery of the they were surprised to learn from the defend. sum of $6,900 being the amount of arrears queant that their contract for supervision was unly by the delendant to the plantiff, for rent.

a dummy one. Mr. B. II. Sharp, R.C, instructed by Mr. D. Mr. Pollack; 1 object to that letter; it is irre-

Steavenson, of Messrs. Deacon, Looker and Deacon, appeared for the plaintiff, and Hop.vant, and you can prove nothing by corres

pondence. Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C., instructed by Mr. M. J. D. Stephens, represented the

the defendants. Mr. Ho Tung said he was the plaintiff in .this case. He lived at "Idlewild," Seymour Road. He completed the negotiations for the purchase of the property in 1904, and bought it in November of that year from Messrs. Babing ton and Mody. The purchase money was $275,000, subject to a mortgage of $150,000 to Mr. Smith, and a second mortgage of $80,000 to the vendors, and the balance in cash. Mr. Bisney approached bim on behalf of the defendant with regard to a lease. Wit. ness asked him 52,50 a month rent, plus taxes, for a term of three or five years, the rent to commence from the signing of the

security for the performance of the lease. A counter-offer was made of $2,300 monthly reat plus taxes, fôr a term of ten years, the tent la commence in July, 1905, the lessee to spend Stojaco or $15,000 on alterations and repairs to the building. Mr. Bisney also offered $7,590 as security instead of $10,0.0. With slight modification the terms were embodied in the

Mr. Pollock: You cannot prove the attitude at the defendant by producing correspondence. His Honour: Yes, J.don't think it is relevant; it had better not gain.

contract, and also he asked for $10,000 for losing he could not grant any concession

agreement. The modification was that the

Prets to remaid undistrarters,

Witness did not know what the lawyers did as regards securing the signature of the mortgagees to the lease, but as they could n be obtained the matter of the indemnity was arranged.

Mr. Sharp: One of the mortgagees, Mr. Smith, was in London, but I am in a position' to state that the signatures of the mortgagees can now be obtained.

}

perty in

The

It is Honour: Is there any path between the two buildings?

Mr. Sharp: No, my Lord, it was only a passage way.

Mr. Bisney: Before we go any further, ny Lord, may I make a remark?

His Honour: Oh, certainly! Mr. Disney: On Saturday there was a good teal said calling doubt upon the idea of an hotel or boarding-house being established in the premises. As regaids that he received a etter in the beginning of 1905 from Mr. Step beos, the defendant's solicitor, saying that as here was to be a hotel statied in the premises he wished to recommend a lady client for the position of manageress. Witness did not keep that letter, but Mr. Stephens would doubtless have a copy.

Mr. Bird, sworn, said he was an architect in die firm of Mesars. Palner and Turner. He measured up the premises for the alterations in question. He received instructions in December, 1901, from the defendant to make the defendant. On the 17th December defend. those measurements, and he got the keys from ant's clerk gave him the keys, and he wrote and acknowledged them.

Cross-examined by Mr. Pollock, witnes said he got some of the keys from the defend. ant's servant, but he did not know how the other keys came to his firms, The keys he got were for internal rooms. He was in the build- ing on the ground floor, but he could not sty whether Lütgens, Einstmann & Co. were en that floor; there was a firm, but he did sot know what the firm was. The upper floors were vacant. He did not know if Mr. Chang Shan Koo gave instructions for the bathrooms He only measured the premises, and Mr. Palmer looked after the Architect's part of the work.

to be taken away.

not been for him he (defendant) would haveing him that the Daily Press would vacate in secured the purchase of the property on the February, and you tore it up. Y same terms Defendant said he would like. Witness: No, he did not, and I did not lear the Daily Press to stay there permanently, an up any letter. they were paying good rent, and the promites would not need so much alteration. That was said during the negotiations for the lease. The premises of the Daily Press had two rooms Mr. S. Disney, te called, said that the old

on witness's part, and it was inserted without demur on the part of Chang Shun Koo, The

under a separate reol. agreement produced was written at witness's office and signed at Chang Shun Koo's house. Defendant asked witness to try to negotiate for the Daily Press to remain on, and witness saw Mr. Bald of that office, who said that another agreement had been entered into by which they were absolutely bound. It was not com reci, as had been said, that witness informed. defend int that the Daily Press would vicate in February, 1995. There was no foundation for that statement, nor for the statements made by

Chang Shun Koo that witness promised hit six mouths' vacant possession There was no promise whatever as to what date the Daily rest would vacate, Witness did not, then know the date himself. Their new premises Mr. Sharp: I accept your decision, my Lord. were then occupied by Dodwell & Co., but "Witness, continuing, said that at the inter witness did not know when that firm vacated view mentioned defendant did not ask the con- the premises. In the negotiations for the sale and the subsequent lease witness acted for both sessions as regards the rent as a right, but as a special invour. (in receipt of witness's decides. During the uegotiations in Mr. Deacon's sion defendant addressed a very strong appeal office Chang' Shue Koo said he could not pay the to the generasity of witness, as he said he was 17,500 cash security, and asked Ho Tung to all the time, and was in great accept a second mortgage on sonte other pro trouble, but

in lieu thereol. Mr. Ho Tung accepted suggestion. Owing to the difficulty of obtaining the signatures of the mortgagees to the lease it was agreed that Ho Tung should give the defendant an indemnity instead of the Pinder, Mr. Victor Deacon made the sugges tinn of indemnity. The documents were drawn up in the office of Messrs. Deacon, Looker and Deacon, and duly signed, and they were delivered to defendant in witness's presence.

Defendant had told witness that the premises were in be used as a hotel or boarding knust, At the end of February or beginning of March d-fendant told witness that the syndicate had fall. en through, and consequently the hotel scheme hid also fallen through. He then asked wit ness to see Ho Tung and ask for same con. cession in rent, as he was in difficulty, as he could not find any tenants; his scheme and the syndicate bad fallen throu,b; the contractor was asking higher rates, and there were Chi- nese failures. Defendant asked the concession as a favour, and not at all as a right. The second mortgage was completed in March- that was the mortgage in lieu of cash security. Since the matter of the lease defendant had en gaged witness to negotiate other transactions for

Mr. Polluck then said that defendant denied him-one was a mortgage for $5,000, in Match. The second mongage for the security was also.

that there was any intention at any time to negotiated in March. In May he negotiated the

ms a hotel or boarding-house in No. 14 or 16. sale of his Zetland Street property, underwritten

As regards the postscript in the agreement an instructions from Chang Shun Koo. Th.was

addition was a made on the subsequent day. As sold for $165,00 The first business he was gards the payment of the rent, it was a mat- asked to do for defendant was the lease of No.

ter of common sense that the premises should 16, Des Vœux Road, Witness had no recollec-

be in a condition for him to complete the re- ion of a letter dated 30th March, said to have pairs, and the only way for him to do so was by been sent by Chang Saun Koo'to witness, com.

the Daily Press going out and vacating the plaining that the Buity dress was still in the premises. The correspondence showed that the premises and had not vacated, as promised, in presence of the Daily Press was very embar February. Chang Shuo Koo had, as a matter massing to the defendant, na the work of repairs of fact, begun to make all manner of complaints, had to go on, and certain water and other refuse A similar letter of the 12th April was produced percotaled down to the Daily Press offices and but winess had no recollection of receiving they very naturally resented it, and correspon- that letter either. He had already asked flo dLuce ensued. As to the representation that Tungfor concessions as a favour, and they were

the Daily Press was to vacate the premises in retused, and then the complaints began. The February, as a matter of fact they remained in letter produced, dated 16th May, was written by

eccupation until the 31st July, ie, a full month witness to Chang Shun Koo, in which witness

after the rent became payable by Chang Shan said he would ask for the concession from Ho

Koo. Obviously he could not he expected 10 pay rent for any premises until he got full He did ask for the concession and it was refused. He wrote that letter in Chang possession of then. The Daily Press not Shun Kno's office. Defendant very often asked having vacated until so long after they ought witness to try and find tenants for him for their done su under the agreement made by Mr. Bisney, as Mr. Ho Tung's representative,

·Cross-examined by Mr. Pollock, witness said the defendant not being enabled to complete he showed the letter produced to Ho Tung let the premises until November, they had lost the alterations and repair to enable them to some time after the agreement had been signet. He did it casually, and was looking through

to the extent of $2.705. As regards the letter papers when this happened to come to hand

Mr. Bisney gave Chang Shan Koo, promising and he picked it up and showed it to him.

to try and secure the concessions asked for, he submitted it was given in exchange for another Mr. Pollock: Did you never show that letter written by Disney promising that the authority to Ho Tung before the agreement Daily Press should vacate in February, and was signed ?

which letter Bisney at once tore upi

Ghang Shan Kon, catled, said he would pre- fer to give his evidence in Chinese.

had

lessee should spend $5,000 instead of $10,000. The agreement älso provide i that the tenants

Cross-examined by Mr. Pollock, witness said should be allowed to remain in, occupation he lived at the Peak sometimes as well as at until the lesses required

the Daily

"Idlewild." He had a great many business their new

interests in the Colony. Witness was not pre premises were ready, Messrs. Babington and

sent at any of the business interviews between Mody sold the premises to witness. The lease

the lawyers and the defendant. The letter of of the premises to the Daily Press was 10th December, 1904, from the defendant in shown to witness. It had been mislaid, Bisney, was shown to witness after the signing and to the best of his belief it had not

of the agreement. He never saw it before, been found. Witness did not know when the He was perfectly certain upon that point; he Dally Press's

new premises were to be ready was not shown that letter until afterwards. when he bought the premises. The agreement He did not know why Bisney showed him that was drawn up in duplicate, each party retaia-

letter after the agreement was signed, nor did ing a copy after due execution. When Mr. be know of any reason why he should have Bisney first brought the agreement to witness shown him the letter then, as it was defend the postscript was not there, and as it was one

ant's authority to Bisney to negotiate the mal- of the previously arranged conditions Mret. A few days before the final offer was Bisney took it back, and put in the postscript, made Disney told witness what offer the de- and alterwards the parties signed the two

fendant would make. The question of the copies. It was brought back the same day spending from $10,000 $15,000 by defendant Apart from the Daily Press, another firm

for repairs on the premises was inentioned remained in occupation in terms of the agree

few days before the 20th of December-it was ment. They remained until February, 1905, after the 14th December, Before the agice when defendant requested, them to vacate noi

ment was brought to witness for signature he they did so. Defendant got the keys just after

I spoken to Bisney about the subject which the signing of the agreement, and went into

was afterwards put in the postscript. The possession. That was about the end of delendant got the key of the premises at the December or beginning of January, In-

end of December ar beginning of January. He mediately after signing the agreement wit-

got it from witness's watchman.... ness gave Messrs. Deacon, Lonker und

Mr. Pollack: I put it to you that he did not Deacon instructions to prepare the lease.

pet the key until March. That was the very next day. Messrs. Deacon, Lonker and Deacon were then acting for in December or January.

Witness: To the best of my belief he got it both parties. After the date of the agice- ment witness received as real $2,518,50 to and of June, and for the month of July from the

·Datly, Press $150, witness paying the taxes. During the preparation of the lease by Messrs. Descan, Looker and Deacon, defendant offered witness a second mortgage on some other pro perty instead of the cash security. Ami further that the first and second mortgages should not be joined as parties to the lease, witness giving an indemnity for that raising of the joinder. The lease was prepared accordingly. [The agreements" and leases were here produced.] Witness was subsequently approached by Mr Bisacy, on behalf of defendant, asking for a remission of rent for a few months, on the ground that he would lose money, as some of ibe members of the syndicate backed bat of the business, Witness asked for what purpose the premises were to be psed, and was told for aboarding-house or hotel.

Mr. Pollock submitted that this was going quite off the track and was irrelevant.

The Chief Justice said he assunted Mr. Sharp understood his position..

Mr. Pollock: Did you see it given?" Witness: No, I was not present, but I un- derstood that my watchon gave it him then.

Mr. Pollock: Then you don't know. Witness, continuing, said be agreed to take the second niortgage in lien of cash, and to give the indemnity in March.

Mr. Pollock: Then everything was bright and happy and cheerful and straight and there about March-is that so? was to be no further trouble over the affair,

Witness: Yes, that is so, in March.

Mr. Pollock here produced a letter dated April in which Mr. Beacon wrote to Mr. Ba hington stating that matters were still in dis- pute between Mr. Ho Tang and defendant, and asked if there was any trouble.

Witness: Defendant went back on his word. so often it was impossible to know what he was up to.

Mr. Pollock: But you say that the matter was all settled in March; how do you make

that our?

as

|

,premises,

Witness: No, celninly not; I never show my doraments to anyone-not in any instance. Defendant mentioned, two or three days before the 20th December, that he was willing to spend $10,005 or $iscop on alterations. "He finally came down to $t,pzo, and so those terms were not mentioned in the document.

Mr. Pollock: If it was finally agreed that Chang Shun Koo was to spend money on the premises, why was it not mentioned in the agreement?

Witness: 1 suppose because it was quite understood, or its missing was an oversight. The letter of agreement produced, in duplicate tell which one he wrote first. was in witness's handwriting. He could not As regards the clause" The lessor will have the benefit of the rents; he believed that was written at the same

Witness: Practically settled. Mr. Pollack: What do you mean by "prac- Mr. Sharp-I assume I do,

tically" Witness, continuing, said he did not agree to His Honour: He means, 1 take it, that all make any remission of rent. After he had so

the arrangements had been settled in March, declined to give such concession, he received a hut al course those arrangements had to he letter from Messrs. Deacon, Lacker and Dea-carried out, and that would take them into cop, dated 15th March. The document pro- April. duced was a press copy of that letter. That letter asked for the same concession. Witness Witness, continuing, said Bisney told him about the projected use of the premises The letter produced replied to that letter

a hotel or boarding-house. which was his reply; in

he said

Defendant he

never said that Bisney had said the Daily could not see his way to grant the con cession asked for. There was no further February, 1995, and that he, defendant, had Press were to go out of the premises in correspondence upon that subject between them. On the 10th April witness wrote

been badly treated. At the one interview de to defendant enclosing a letter from the Daily fendant only said that Bisney bullied him, but Press in which the latter complained of the

he did not explain how, or in what the bully-time as the rest of the section. workmen letting water into their office, and say.

ing consisted. ing he would bold defendant responsible if any damage were done. Further correspondence followed upon the same subject, witness for warding on all letters Irom the Daily Press. On the rath April, witness received a letter from

Witness: He mentioned about being bullied, Deacon, Looker and Deacon, in which they but did not refer to Bisney's promises. As re said they were instructed that witness had pre-gards the Daily Press he said he thought the mised defendant, through Mr. Bisney, time to do the necessary work of repairs and alter repairs could be carried out without interfering

Mr. Pollock: Here is a letter from Chang Shun Kon to you, complaining that Bisney not been fulfilled. Did Chang Shun Kno refer had made him certain promises which had

to those promises to you?

with them, but he found they couldn't,

Mr. Polock; Did not Chang Shun' Koo com- plain of something mare serious than being bullied? Did he, not say he had been de- 'ceived?

ations. Witness wrote back to say he never made any such promise, through Mr. Risney, or any one else. Witneso saw defendant per sonally regarding the concessions he was ask- ing, That was on the 34th May, 1995, at

witness's house, where defendant called, and Witness: No, he simply said bullied, and 1. asked for the remission of rent, saying that some told him he was a business man and should be members of his party had cried off their agreeable to look alter himself. ment, and, morcover, he was having trouble with his contractor. [Two letters were here produced dated 12th and zzad May, written by defendant to witness, they were duplicates but dated, as to t); second, ten days later.] Wi- ness only received the one dated 22nd,

Mr. Pollock: You said you received them

both.

Witness: The contents being identical I thought I had received the letters tinlil I saw the dates. I never received the one dated 12th

May.

Mr. Sharp: Well, now, here's a third letter what is this, Mr. Ho Tung? Witness: This is a letter dated in English, 22nd May, but I never received it, and never saw it before.

Mr. Pollock; There is nothing in English

Re-examined by Mr. Sharp, witness said, putting aside the question of whether the defendant did or did not get the keys in January, he knew he could have had them at any time-the place was always practically open, Defendant did not make any special charges against Mr. Bisney, but mentioned the bullying in a casual way.

Mr. Bisney, sworn, said he lived at the

Hongkong Hotel. He was an estate broker, the premises the subject of this suit; he acted carrying on business in this Colony, He knew

as broker for Mr. Ho. Tung in the purchase from Messrs. Babington.and Mody.

Witness here reiterated the terms of the pur chase, and said prior to his negotiating on behalf of ilo Tung, Chang Shun Koo was negotiating for the purchase, but Ho Tung's negotiations went through.

Mr. Sharp here produced a letter, addressed by Messrs. Deacon, Looker and Deacon, to Mr. Hu fung, saying that they were instructed by Mr. Chang Shan Koo to state that in con- sideration of the indemnity to be given by Mr. Ho Tung, Chang Shan Koo was willing to waive the rejoinder. Further correspondence was produced merely reiterating the request for concessions, by Chang Shan Koo, and the refusal of Mr. Ho Tung.

were given him. He heard from Mr. Beacon in his office that the Daily Friss would not vacate the premises until the end of July. Witness had from January to Juno to complete the repairs, but if the Dally Press would not move out then he must suffer loss. The concession ho referred to was that he was to get an extra ponth to complete the repairs for every month

Mr. Sharp: I put it to you that you tamper- Ho Tung's representative. At that time wit That concession was promised by Disney as

the letter back ten daya to make it appear that ness sull had the written statement inade by"!' you had sent Mr. Ho Tung a letter ten days Hisney, that the Press would leave in April. previously. You have no chit-book evidence The letter of 12th April, addressed by Messrs.to show that Mr. Ho Tung received more than Deacon, Looker and Deacon to Mr. Ho Tung, the one letter on May 2nd, and not two was written under witness's instructions, and on that date and one on the ith as you say the same day witness wrote to Disney, and vou cent.

ent the letter at once, but could not remember whether he sent it in a chit-book or with lense chit-slip. He remembered receiving an ac knowledgment of receipt of that letter, On the 10th May Messrs, Deacon, Looker and Deacon sent to witness the drafts of the three docu- ments, but witness said he would not agree to the suggestion of an indemnity instead of the mortgagees signing the lease. Mr. Deacon ad- vised bin not to agree.

Mr. Pollock: Which Mr. Denton ? Witness: Uld Deacon advised me to refuse in agice.

Witness said as regards the security he did Hot suggest that he should give a second mo tgage on another properly instead of the $7,50 cash. While the negotiations were go- ng on, he had a discussion with Mr. Bisney in which he said why should the repairs be paid for by witness? Bisney said that if there bad been a clause in the agreement that the kadlord should pay the repairs bill then wit- ness would not have had to do so, and Disney then suggested the second mortgage. Wit ness wanted a mortgage on another business, but it was not for security, he wanted some cash very badly. Bisney said he would raise Store on mortgage un the other pro perty, and then witness said that out of that $7,500 could be used as the security required, it was mus a sudden new idea after the signing of the contract. What Bisney said about it the other day was not true. In May, witness sent letters to Mr. Ha Tung, one-on-the 12th and another on the 22nd May. Both those letters were actually sent. These were the letters complaining that the Daily Press were Road, Witness saw Mr. Ho Tung in May sull occupying the premises, No. 14 Des Voeux between the 12th and the 22nd, because the letter of the 22nd was written after he bad seen him. At that interview, witness asked Ho Fung to confirm the promises made by Bisney, made, and witness said that Hisney had promis Mr. Ho Tung asked what promises isney had

ed that the Daily Press would vacate in February and that as they had not done so it had inflicted great hardship on him. Mr. Ho Tong then said, "Why do you not arrange clearly and distinctly with Bisney?" Witness aid he had already done so. Then do Tong asked him, if that were so,' "How is it you sign- ed a clause allowing the Daily Press to remain." Witness said he signed that clause because Bisney had promised him that the Press would move out in February.

Mr. Ho Tung then asked him what proof he had that Disney made that promise, and witness mentioned, the letter that Bisney had written, but said it had been :| since destroyed by Bisney. Mr. Ho Tung then asked him what else Bisney promised him, and he replied that was about all, Nothing was said about his scheme or ryndicate for hotel ur boarding-house in the premises. The letter produced was, written by Bissey on the 16th May, in witness's office. Bisney called there, and witness came from his family house when a servant told him Bisney was there. His family house was next door to his office. When he entered his office he saw Bisney put a piece of blotting-paper over a letter he was writing, Disney asked witness for the stip of paper he hud previously given him. Witness asked him what he wanted it for, and Bisney said he wanted it because it only mentioned the Press vacating, but made no mention of Ho Tung's conces sions, and Bisney then gave him another paper. Witness then asked Bisney to return the slip, bnt Bisney got very angry and scolded witness, and alter some argument Bisney tore up the letter and put the pieces in his pocket, and then being still angry be w +lked away,

а

Witness I can look in my office for more plips.

Mr. Ship: I suppose the tearing up of 'your chit-book in that way was another ba of work done by somebody in your office, that' you do not know anything about and do not

It was done? know why

Witness: I do not know who did it or why it was done. → Mr. Sharp :' You did not order it done?

Witdors: No, why should i order it done?, The Court adjourned for tiffin, After the tiffin recess,

.

Witness, continuing his evidence, said that some pages had been toin out of his letter book.

Mr. Sharp: Now, Mr. Chang Shan Koo, you keep your letter book under such a system, by which you can always insert a letter of pay date to make it appear as if letters had been written on certain dates whereas they may have been written a year before. Now herd la a book, and page 28 we find a letter-all the previous 27 pages are blank; then" there are some more blank pages and another letter appears on page 54

Winess: These are not my writing.

Mr. Sharp: No, quite se, they are possibly in the writing of the clerk in your office who alters your letters and tears up your chit-books? Witness: I can't sny that, but let me explain. We keep all kinds of letters together, and put all friends' letters together by themselves.

any date and press-copy them to suit yourself, Mr. Sharp: Then you cin write letters on

as occasion requires?

Winess: No, we keep all kinds of Jetterb separate.

Mr. Sharps Oh separated by 24 or 30 pages to keep thein apart?

His Honours There is a memorandum in which Chang Shan Koo says he is awaiting a reply of the letter of the 12th May have read that letter, and I should like to know what there is in it to which you expected a reply?

Witness: I did not receive a reply. His Honour: I did not ask you that-What is there in that letter that called for the reply you said you gwaited?.

Witness: I wanted a reply.

Waness, contiguing, said that Mr. Dencop told him that as he had entered into a written agreement it was no use to talk about what Bisney had said he must have some written. proof of all statements,

Mn Shorp: Whỹ did you not tell Mr. Dea con that you had a written statement that the Daily Piers would clear out in February?

Witness: I did show it to Mr. Viétor Dea-

con.

Mr. Sharp: You did? And yet your solicitors At your instructions wrote several letters. Can you find in any single letter from any of your. solicitors, and you bave had nearly all the 10- licitors in the Colony-any reference to is ney's promise that the Daily Priss would clear out in February 2

Witness: I only told Mr. Victor Deacon. Mr. Sharp: You know, don't you, that Mr. Victor Deacon has gone home?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Sharp Then you know he cannot be called in this Cour

Witness; 1 told Mr. Descon to put a clause in the lease about it,

Mr. Sharp: But there is no such clause the lease.

Witness: No; Mr. Disney stopped it.

Mr. Sharp: Well, my Lord, this looks me if we shall require to get Mr. Deacon's evidence in this case, under commission, as be is the only lawyer he mentioned the maller to. (To wit Mr. Pallock: Well, now as regards the conness.) Have you a single copy of any letter or tuance of the Darly Press to occupy the pre-any writing of any sort of your own where you mises, in what way was is a hardship to you? mention Mr. Bisney's written undertaking?"

Witness: I was unable to complete the re Witness: Nol

so I lost money. If they had gone out in Feb ruary I could have finished the repairs in June, but as a matter of fact they were not fully com- completed until December. Witness, conti

ing said, he never agreed to spend $10,0ce to $15,000 on the premises, nor did he offer to a lower rent. He was not aware of the exist do so with a view to get Mr. Ho Tung to take

ece of either of the mortgages on the premises when he entered into the agreement,

Mr. Pollock: But you can speak English quite well.

Chang Shan Koo; But I prefer to give it in Chinese.

His Honour: If he wishes to speak in Chinairs and so i could not let the premises, and nese he is entitled to do so.

Witness, continuing, said he had arranged to lease the premises in question, from Mr. Ho Tung. He never at any time contemplated auring an hotel either in No. 16 or No. 14. Mr Risney came to him and said that Farmer premises for an hotel, and witness said alright of the King Edward Hotel wanted to rent the

il the terms were satisfactory. This was said before Hisney had returned him the contract note. He remembered the contract was signed on the 20th December, and it was a few days aller that Bisney made the offer. The proposal for running the place as an hotel came from Bisney, and certainly not from witness witness was asked by Hisney to sign the con

When tract he at first refused, because all the condi- tions were not there. In clause seven the rent was arranged to be paid over to the landlord, and witness wanted to know, why he should pay the rent to the landlord, when the place was under repairs from January 10 June. answer questions before they are asked-Bid Disney explained that it referred to the rent

Mr. Pollock: Was it not squeezed in after wards?

Witness: I very often make omissions and then on reading over a document at the time insert the omitted clause.

Mr. Pollock: Didn't Ho Tung- Witness Na, he didn't.

Mr. Pollock: Mr. Bisney, I am afraid we shall have a difficulty in believing you if you

not Ho Tung, as a matter of fact, suggest to you to make that addition

Witness: No, I had no conversation with Ho Tung on the subject.

Mr. Pollock: Is not all this talk about a hotel or boarding-house all talk and nonsense? Witness: No, it is not, Chang Shun Koo establishing the business, and I put myself in gave me the plans and asked me to help him in

communication with several hotel-keepers with reference to the business; Mr. Farmer of Macao

for one.

Mr. Pollock Then you represented both parties-Did you get commission from both sides?—Yes.

It must be paying business. It is, or I would not be in it! The defendant was very anxious for the Bally Press to stop on the

premises.

Mr. Pollack: Then I put it to you he did not want the premises for a hotel or boarding house. He said he did.

Mr. Pollack:-You have said you have no recollection of receiving certain letters. Have you a very bad memory?

Witness-No, I don't think I have a bad

due before January.

Mr. Pollack: Never mind about what you thought, Come to the question of the post- script, when did you sign it?

Witness: Į signed il two or three days after. I signed the contract.

Mr. Pollock: Who made the addition of the postcript)

Witness: Mr. Bisney.

Mr. Pollock: When he brought it to you to sign what did he tell you?

Witness: He told me a lot of things. Mr. Pollack: Quite sa, but tell us what they

were.

Mr. Pollock: It has been suggested that you would have had great difficulty in securing tenants.

Witness: I had some proposed tenants but lost them as I could not put them into posses. waited and he had now moved in. If he had sion when they wanted the premises. Marty

been able to let the whole premises the sent would have been more than $3,700 a month. There was no difficulty in procuring tenants as there was a demand for premises at that time.

Mr. Pollock: Now, do I understand you that at the one interview you had with Mr. Ho Tung, he promised you nothing?

Witness: He did promise me something. Mr. Pollack: Obit understood not. Well, what did he promise?

Witness: He promised to put the maller through and that I should not lose anything.

Mr. Pollack: Nothing definite, or it writing. Witness: No, nothing more, and, it was n verbal promise.

Cross-examined by Mr. Sharp, witness and he had a fair amount of experience in property dealings in Hongkong, He had lots of deal; ings is propesty. He never advertised in the Chinese papers that he was a capitalist want- ing to purchase property, He had property to a large extent in the Colony, both in Kow- loon and Victoria. He told a property in Zetland Street lately through Mr. Disney for a very large sum. With regard to the letter witness sent to Mr. Ho Tung, and which the latter denies receiving, that letter was in wit ness's handwriting, and was press-copied, as usual in his copybook. The book produced was the book, and that of the letter of ess-copy in the book was bore the date 19th May.

the 12th May. That letter

Witness: Well, he came to me in a great hurry and said the post script was an omission and it must be signed, and I signed it. He niso said that no one had power to order the Daily Press 10 vacate. Mr. Bisney told ma that if I refused to sign the postscript it would put him to trouble with Mr. Ho Tung who would think he was not carrying out the busi- postscript it would be a great hardship on me as ness properly. I said that if I had to sign the I did not know when the Daily Press would vacate. Then they had a long discussion and this letter.

Witness then spoke as to 'defendant's ap-

Binney

at last said he promised that the Daily Mr. Sharp: Mr. Ho-Tung, your truthfulness

Mr. Pollock-Here is a receipt for a letter Press would vacate in January or Februa is again challenged; will you look again for prouching him to secure a lease of the next house, saying it was to be used as a hotel or

you don't recollect; is that your signature ?-aid, if a Bissy Rivek up a piece the English date

Yes, it is--I receive lots of letters from him. in writing; and took Witness: It is in Chinese characters "May boarding house, He arranged that lease with

Mr. Pollock: Here's another showing you ¦ of paper and wrote on it that the Daily | that is so ; it has been altered. 27,"immediately under the Chinese date. I did the Land Investment Co. Subsequently de- received a letter on the 12th May.

fendant approached him to arrange a further

Frest would, vacate in February. It was writ- Mr. Sharp: Then I put it to you, that you not say it was written in English; I only said

lease-of the house in dispute. That was

Witness:-1 received several from that writer ten in English, and signed S. B" That letter did not send a letter to Mr. Ho Tung on the the equivalent the English date was there. about a week after the other lease had beco

on the 12th May. Seeing the signatures IĮ was no longer in existence as Mr. Hisney des. | 12th May. Witness, continuing, said all the letter, posetiled. Winess then approached Mr. Ha Tong, question, though I have no recollection of them. gave me that letter then I signed the post must have received a letter on the dates in troyed it in the third werk in May. When ho mitted and denied as to receipt, all bore upon the subject of the remission of rent. It was

and the latter, made terms. Witness had no

Witness, continuing, said that on the occasion script. after the receipt of the letter of 22nd May, that written record of those terms, but be remem. he wrote the letter in Chang Shun Koo's office

on

ho had the interview mentioned. He had no Interview with defendant either before or alter that one; it was his solo interview. Witness said he would let defendant know his decision in a day or two and subsequently wrote to in- form defendant that ho could not seo His way to give any indulgence with regard to the lease

bered them. Witness here cited the terms as above.

The Court adjourned for tiffin.

After the adjournment, Mr. Bisney continued his evidpace in corroboration of the evidence of the last witness, and said that, when he was negotiating for the lease, defendant said if it had

memory.

he bad considerable conversation with him.

Mr. Pollock: You wrote that letter in coa-. alderation of Chang's handing you back a letter yon bed previously written?

Witness: Notfäidat.

·

1

Mr. Pollock 1 put it to you that you did, and that he handed you back your letter tell-

Mr. Sharp: Has not that copy been altered in the copy-book --Look carefully at it; here's Wines (Looking through the glass): Yes,

this alteration.

Witacas: I cannot now say, on account of

Mr. Sharp Did you Continuing, witness said on the 30th March to Mr. ile Tung on the send ane letter or two

the 22nd May ? ha wrote a letter to Mr. Bitney, and that letter Witness: Icannot now say, was signed for by Blauey.. That leller pointed Mr. Sharp: What explanation do you give out that he had learned that the Daily Press of this alteration in the copy book? would but vacate for some months and if that Witness: Someone must have got to the were so he would not bear the loss, and asked book and altered it; I did not do it. But I Bimay to see that the concessions which Mr. Ho Tang had promised him through Bisney wrong date on a letter, as I am very catalosa.

can't explain it in any way. I sometimes put a

Mr. Sharp: No, I thought not. But in your letter to. Mr. Ho Tung you mention Mr. Disney's "repeated promises" that the Dolly Priss would vacate in February. Now, if you ever had that written promiss why didn't you say that "Mr. Bisney gave me a written under taking that the Daily Press would vacate în destroyed that written undertaking why Febriary, Lut he, Mr. Bisney, subsequently

did not you mention that, instead of talking about." repeated promises ?"

Witness: only told Mr. Deacon of that undertaking, but Mr. Bisney several times

pro- anised the premises should be vacated.

Witness, continuing, said that the engrossed indemnity was sent to him by Mr. Deacon to sign on the roth May.

Mr. Sharp Then you mean to say that Mr. Deacon seat you the indemnity to sign, but at the same time advised you not to sign it?

Witness Let me explain. Mr. Deacon sent me tre engrossed indemnity, and then in the evening I met him on the Kowloon wharf and I asked him wh. he had sent me the in demnity to sign, when he had advised me not to sign it. He said Bisney had told him I had sent him to instruct Mr. Deacon to draw up the deed:

Mr. Sharp: Did he advise you then pot to sign it?

Witness: Yes, he did.

Mr. Sharp: You were having trouble with your contractor at that time?

Witness: No, no trouble,

Mr. Sharp: But we have established the fact that considerable correspondence took place owing to his flooding the premises of the Daily Press, which threatened him with an actiong You have sublet nearly the whole frquis to Marty, and the Oriental Construction Com pany, and you have an office there, yourself, and you have been advertising the property for the past year?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Sharp And you have been receiving rent from these people all the time, and yet you have not paid Mr. Ho Tung one cent for

rent.

Witness; But I will.

Mr. Sharp: Oh, yes, quite so; you think, after this case you will have to..

ploy of Chang Shan Koo, having been with him

Look Aho said she was a servant in the em-. since October, 1904. She had seen a broker come to her master's house. He was supposed to be a Portuguese. His face was pack-marked. He had been in the house several times. He was there in May, 1905 when he had a row with liermaster. Witness thought they were fighting.

Then she went to look at them, and she saw the pock-marked Portuguese tear up a piece of paper and put the pieces in his pocket, and go away, and then she went away to breakfast, and did not see anything more.

Mr. Stephens then spoketo writing the letter referred to asking for, the appointment aa manageress of a hotel, for a client of his. He wrote the letter to Bĺsawy, but no hotel way