1908-12-11 — Page 8

THE HONGKONG TELEGRAPH FRIDAY DECEMBER 11 1058

A YARN DISPUTE.

OVER HALF-A-MILLION DOLLARS INVOLVED.

QUESTION OF COMPRADORE'S LIABILITY.

HIS RELATION BETWEEN PRINCIPAL AND DEALERS.

9th inst.

|

means, which the firm would not of Judging The Banishment Orders

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

WING MEETING

KATHE: REQISTRAR GENERAL AND CHINJEKE

EDITORE,

{sary agreement, he'snidi. It one would get the prædore engaged that he would make good. Committee of the Hangkong General Chamber

|

Mr. Pollock proceeded to arras on a centaid, plata Tri with any Chinese person, or persons, statement made by the defendant, wherein, he: fim, company, ur corporation, with or witho the stability or Gibarwish of Chinese dealers! stated "thatỹ hot mistakenly believed that he,] [not thb knowledge or consent of the defen"; with whom the firm was doing business; and wan indebted to the plaintiff in a caitala sum, dant, wheiber auch losses, damages, costs, it was for that porpore he was appagad, and Counsel, stated that that amounted to an ad- charged or expensen, should be incurred or pald's salary and commission for all-orlars mission and the onus was on the defendant tó midlaved by reason of the breach of ench; con- | received. He was bound by the firm in respect show that he was misieken when be made the tract, agreement, transaction or business or of all losses incurred through dealing with sta'ement). If not, he asked for judgmantikat atherwise howscever, by nawet Chiness customers. That was the position of

Sir Henry contended that that was not the 20 The deat bbservation

ion, Sir Henry went on,

s compradom position which arose out of cause of action. The cause was compradore's was that so such agreement, as given above the first words in the "greement.-"' I tereby, agreements. The stalement, was made by | existed between the parties. It was an imagi- agree to be compradors? mistake, m

-- it was implied, Counsel proceeded, that the The Chief Justice concured, and added that: | strongest pair of mignifying glassen obtainable An admission

ion made by mistake was no ad- in the Colony and look at the compradore's to the firm any losses which the firm would mission.

presmant be would not find ous single word sustain as the result of contracts entered lato Mr. Pollock fald og Page

that the defendant mast of the ailegation to be seen in paragraph thren between the firm and Chinese dealers de clear the mistake one way or another, and proof the statement of claim. There was nothing to The Chief Justice-I would ever go to the cended to cite authorities to strengthen his fastily single

** single word of such an allegation. They extant of saying that there is so understanding. point, (Proceeding); 3 be defendant bound had made a mistake by what plaintifs thought by bli

his admission." He must be held to his ade was their remedy What they really should a

a compradora. ⠀ mission unless he could show that there was a bave done was to have exhausted their proper

which ought to entitle bim to release. mistaka

remedy and foreclosed the compradore's security the The Chial Justice did not agree with this and then brought an action for alleged breach The polot having been rolled, Mr. Pollock of contract: From the steps they had taken the defendant was put on the footing of a Chin entered into between the parties.

Shortly before one o'clock the Court adjourn at surety amber his mortgage. Resear ed for tiffin, bet, p

The Chief Justice observed that it was the On resuming, Mr. Shroff was called to the custom to link together & compradore's, agree stand, to prove, certain accounts of yarn deli-ment with his morgagd, and in one case it was *vered and undelivered, and various contracte: held possiblo, stati

for bales.of yarn.

Strong Sir Houry replied that the facts in the two What is this: 30,000 bales undelivered 2 the point just indicated he wanted to take and The Chief Justice (examining the accounts) cases were not the same. Before he came to

other point, th taken delivery of by firms, which, wsat bank.

"'On Saturday,, the members of the Genera: of Commerce met to discattato la cahan abjects, the magasines in Chins commer cial circles which had been fostered by the

a dispute in the, cotton yarn. trade and such damaged goods, and the prices at which went on to read the..compradora's agreemba 10 contractor, for whom defendant acted only case, and proceeding said that in that event in the representatives of the respectiv

sams to the defendant nor credited bim A vary important action having reference to with the difference between the sound valde of also the responsibility of a compradore they were sold or were or are saleable, The was sposed to the Supreme Court, this forenoop, the Chief Justice (Sir Francis P) presiding. The action was brought Big David and Company against their compradore (Mr. Chau Ut Chiu) to re- cover the sum of $648,81667 and interest the rate of $8 per centum per annum from the the rate of fiber issued and until payment or to fedgment. This large class dealings in have arisen in connection with cotton yam, for which, the plaintiffs alleged, the compradore was liable..

defendant is unable to give particular of the several allegations contained in this paragraph; but full: particolars can be obtained from books and documents in the possession of the plais!: at 10. The plaintifs have entered into agree ments of campromise with several of the per- sans who purchased goods from the defendants and failed to take delivery at due date, and in particular with the Fook Hing and Kung Hing firns and have received monies, the amount of

The defendant entered a counter-claim to recover the sum of $55,000, alleged to have been deposited with them. This was denied.

E Pollock, KC, instructed by Mr. Mr. H. A. G. Jackson (of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and

Messia, Ewens and Hatstoo).

Witness--These are bales, which were not

rupt.

The defendant contracted there le two capacities. He entered with the plaintiffs into

which is to the defendant unknowa 'undar ench Sir Henry-He is using: the word "bank- í an agreement as their servant. · · That appeared alia, not only to the Armyable, inter | of having incited the riots were ordered to leave!

agreements. The plaintiffs have not brought the sum received as aforesaid into account in their claim Against the defendant.

COUNTER-CLAIM.

rupt freely,

זי

The Chief Justice-Are all these aight men mentioned bere, Mr. Shroff, bankrupt?—No. | They closed their shops.

· Mr. Pollock--What do the three red crosses. in the margin mean ?--- That delivery bad been takes between 16th August and 16th November.

· Had plaintiffs at all times enough yarn to

Sir Henry (cross-dxamining)---You know Mr. Obadiab Ellis ?--Yes,

1. The defendant repeats the allegations con- Master) appeared for the plaintiffs. The detained in the statement of defence. fendant was represented by Sir Henry Berkeley, K.C, with whom was Mr. J. Scott farston (of dated the 30th January, 1903, in paragraph 3 ofatisfy all the contracts ? Yes.

2. Under and in pursuance of the Agreement

the statement of defence referred to, the de. fendant deposited with the plaintiff the sam of $55,000 as security for the das performance by the defendant of his obligations under the said Agreement.

THE CLAIM.

When the case opened Mr. Pollock pro- ceeded to read the statements of both parties,

as follows:-

ba

3. The defendant has performed all bis, said obligations under the sald Agreement. REPLY TO DEFENCE AND COUNTER-CLAIM.

|

1

He is a member of the firm ì—He was. He was on 16th August, 1906? Yes; be

was manager.

|

Do you know that he attended a meeting at the office of Morris. E..D. Sassoon and Come pany at the request of Messrs. David and Co. ?|

No..

A meeting of yarn merchants and importers?

You know Mr. Raymond Yes." Messrs. David Sassoon szó importers of yarn? Yes.

The statement of claim was to the effect that the plaintiff's were merchants carrying on business at Prince's Buildings. The defendant was a compradore residing at 62, Queen's Road

1. In reply to paragraph' 3 of the statement Central. The defendant, as part of the cons of defence, the plaintiffs say as follows :--- sideration for the plaintiffs who employed him, The defendant's. Agreements, as compradore-No; I don't know. agreed to pay them any deficiency in the price with the plaintiffs, and his obligations as such of goods which should be, told or agreed to be compradore to the plaintiffs are set out and de- Hold

by plaintiffs to may Chinese person, firm, fed in two Agreements, both of them dated the company or corporation with or without the sath day of January, 1903, and both of consant or knowledge of the defendant, and thom made between the defendant of the also all loss or profit or commission and all one part and the plaintiffs of the other part, expenses which should be incurred or sustained and in a further Agreement dated the 27th by them in connection with or in relation to of day of April, 1995; which was also made arising out of any contract should he entered between the defendant of the one part and Into or effected by the plaintiff with any Chinore, the plaintiffs of the other part. Upon the the breach of such contract. The plaintiffs had,

to which the plaintiffs cravo leave to refer, the Whilst the defendant was in their employment defendant's obligations to the plaint, as I can shape some sort of reference. incurred deficiency in the price of certain goods compradore, are to the eifect which is stated |--Sir Henry--If we win thero is no reference and the liability of the defendant amounted to

in the statement of claim and the defendent is || (laughter), $648,81567, as was admitted by the defendant liable to pay the plaintiffs' claim in this action. In his declaration made in support of bis

2. u reply to paragraph 4 of the statement patision dated 27th November, 1950, to be ad of defence, the plaintiffs say st follows:--The Judged bankrupt....

losses inquestion did amount to the said sum |61.2648,816.67 and. the 'defendant is liable ar

but to any

poitation of certala Chiassa marchabry and the The meating was an posrally protracted I say that business could not be doos without face of banishment orders against bikare. one, and much information was commbri. Mr. Pollock The

debts are

cated to the whole body of the Committee h and it follows that the.com individual member which was not then dwa compradore pradore known by the whole board fecessity, or Mas Counsel then cited parts of the Chief formation: Imparted was obtained apo COD Justice's judgment in the Chan Kee-Soonfidential reports which are of interest) poly to every case a compradora when he got into dif

of trade affected. After some discussion culties could day that he knew nothing meeting resolved to makeyanitable which would involve endless inquiry, and if

sentations to the Govamment on the subject: were competent for him to raise the point, whether he had any specific knowledge of each REGISTRAR GENERAL'S STA transaction would, unquestionably, rains uno

The Chinese papers this morning pablish the deposited, inter alia, as part of the security for sent for by the Registrar Genes) who made he necessary inquiry. A sum of $55,000 had been fact that on Saturday the native editors were the due payment to the firm from the compra following statement for publication Recon dore and by staff. Here was an express re several merchants whom Government shspectad ference, to monios, which became

the Colony. This gave rise to some unsasinGIN, in commercial circles. Besides, rumours bad in a document dated 30th January, 1992, entiti. Individual member of the firm, which ed an agreement in respect to the compradora's included Mr. A. David, an, panner been in circulation that sama one hundred. security. In that agreement the parties wore | | In the firm of S. David and Company." more men were awaiting badlahtaent. This later report fünther agitated the people's minds; Chan Út Chia and S. J. David and Company, the agreement there was reference to the morte, The defendant:alum: made a

which mortgage, gage, and Mr. Pollock submitted that that reThese rumours ware, however, without found

ation and awed their origin to a misunder- appeared to have been executed before the ference had this effect—that what

was stated in agreement. In this mortgage the parties were: the mortgage became evidence of obligation standing. Should hereafter there be 3's further Chan Ut Chiu and Mr. A. J. David, There was which the defendant had taken upon himself rioting or any other transgression, of the law not a word, Sir Henry pursued, of 8. J. David & as compradore--in other words it prevented

and' merchants conduct their trade in's peace® Co. They were not a party. The mortgage iken the defendant from saying that he was not res- able manner and do not incite the rowdy was between A. J. David and a servant of S. J. ponsible in regard to mutters which were not.

elements to disorder, the Hongkony Govor David and Company There was no transfer set out in the mortgage an

ment hava.coxtainly no desire to banish even a of the mortgage from A. J. David to S. J. David

plugle individual more. and Company on the records, and he submitted that in the absence of any such transfer or as- signment that plaintiffi (Mèssrs. S. 1. David and Company) had no doous standi in the Supreme Court of Hongkong on any matter arising out of that mortgage. "Sir Henry did not say that ́s partner in a firm could not sue on a morgage" for his firm. What he contended was that he

must be a party to the action, o

The Chief Justice-Supposing the case wat Sir Henry-Before I go into the matter-1- won, would not the money be the firm's ? think it would be best for the other side to Sir Henry replied yes. But in this case A. J. close its case, I propose to deal with the legal David was not a party in the action, which he point and to ask for non-abit. It in a pure should have been. The whole thing relied legal argument and if we fail think the ac-with A. J. David, and nobody but himself could counts would have-to-be referred to an ac- enter and take possession. "The property countant.

was personal to David," Sir Heory added. The Chief Justice-I think that it would be The Chief Justice-Bot yet he cannot recover

Sir Henry-Quite so. I say that he was not made a party in the action, and therefore the plaintiffe must suffer,

whether auch losses be incurred by reason of trie -construction of the said three document helter for you to raise your points-first. Then except on behalf of his firm ?

STATEMENT OF DEFENCE,

www

1. The defendant admits paragraphe.t and compradore to pay the said losses to the plain-

of the statement of cizim.

[tiffs. The plaiòtiffs deny that the admission of liability to the raid andune which was onde by the defendant in his Declaration in Egok fuptcy was made by the defendant under any mistake or mistaken belief.

2. The defendant denies that in consideration of the plaintiffs employing him as compradore or for any consideration whatever he agreed to pay to the plaintiffs any deficiency of the price of goods or any loss of profit or commission or 3. In reply to paragraphs of the state." any losser, damages, costs, Charges or expenses ment of defence, the plaintiffs say as incurred or sustained by the plaintiffs as alleg follows:-The plaintiffs bave not at any ed in paragraph 3 of the statement of claim. time entered into any Agreements with any As to the agreement in paragraph 3 of Chiness, with whom the plaintiffs entered the statement of claim teferred to, which is in into contracts to give them time for Lak

and dated the 30th January, 1902, and ing delivery of the goods or any of the goods extended by a further agreement in writing which the plaintiffs had contracted to sell to dated the 27th April, 195, and the claim of the then The plaintiffs have not lost any rights plaintiffs in the said paragraph and paragraph against the defendant. 4 of the statement of claim set forth, as defined by the further and better particulars of the filed, the defendant claim fled or agreed to

to be will object that on the true construction of the agreements, the defendant is Bot liable to pay the claim or any part thereal,

that be was so indebted,

4. Ja teply to paragraph 6 of the statement of defence, the plaintiffs say that they had got and were able to deliver all the goods which they had contracted to deliver at the respectiva due dates for delivery thereof. No rach Agree ments as alleged were entered into by the plaintiffs.

It was finally decided to raise the argument to-morrow morning, and the Court adjourned #1 3.45 o'clock.

INTERESTING ADDRESSES:

„CHIMESE_COMPRADORES AND THEIR

Obligations DISCUSSED,

roth, inst.

Adjourned from yesterday, the action brought by Messrs.*5. J. David and Company against their compradora (Mr. Chan Ut Chiu), to recover the sum of $648,81667 and intntent the rate of 58 per centum per annum. from the date the writ was issued and until payment or judgment; and the counter-claim to recover the 10m of $55,000, alleged to have been security deposited with the firm, were continued before the Chief Justice, to the Supreme Court,

It is unnecessary to remask

that an action of such lurportance has aronend much interest in bath European; and Chinese mercantile circles in the. Catoay. Throughout the day's proceedings a number of native merchani followed every argument most carefully. There were also present one or two.Chinese ship-‡ owners who also appeared deeply interested in the matter." :

this

(pronodo.

דין

Shortly after eleven o'clock, the Chief Justice took his next, and Mr. Palleck said that he had decided to close his case, but reserved the right to call evidence on any point that the other side might raise.

Sir Henry Berkeley said he moved for judg- ment and non-suit,:

The Chief Justice-You can move for judg meet, but I don't know whether I can allow it, ment without calling witnesses?

The Chief Justice-How many years was———— Mr. Follock-Since 1907, The Chief Justice-Can's they amend the with

Sir Henry No.

• Mr. Pollock stated that legal estate could, only rest with an individual and not with a' fitmHe explained that the reason why Me David was not a party i in the action was for conveyancing reasons,

The Chief Justice remarked at the conclusion that that sounded like Chinese fonge

Sir Henry retorted that he did not care what reasons led the plaintiffs to do what they did. The plaintiffs could not sue on a coven aut to another man; it may be that if the plaintiffs won, the case the firm would benefit, but the proper man to sue was Mr. A. J. David. S. J. David and Company could not sue; and be submitted: further that the two documents made between two different parties could not be taken together in this action. In the Chan Kee- Sassoon, affair the documents were made by the same persoas. Sir Henry then put his two points forwards, thus --

hich

Hore Mr. Pollock Cited authorities at length and read certain important clauses in the agreement and the mortgage.

Continuing, Counsel said that the master was brought home to the compradore, and bis friend could not cut the matter adrift from the agreement and the mortgage. Supposing, be stated, giving an instance, that the speaker wAI employed in a position of trust and had to deposit Stco,000 as security and he embeuted $300,000, because he put up $100,000, be may be liable for $200,000.

Sir Henry That's not the polat ; it does not apply,

Mr. Pollock-Supposing there was no security. Does that mean that the compradore in under no liability? The argument must go to that extent,

* The Chief Justice-If there is no security there can be no liability,

Mr. Pollock did not agree.

The Chief Justice asked several questions to this effect.. Supposing that it in contracted for at $100 a bale and at contract time there is a | crash and the bale in worth $57, would the compradore be liabiz

|

|

A CHINESE PETITION.-

doVERNMENT'S GONDITIONAL REVOCATION.

Katla insta

As we announced last week a petition was being circatated. In- Chinese di marcistila circles for presentation to the Governor in respect of the banishment: orders@agalnut certain Chinese under the directions: contained in which they hnd hown deportad, from the Colony. We have since learnt that the memo rial has been mbmitted for the Governor's CON- sideration. Our efforts to obtain u

copy of the petition bare not met with success, but wa have learnt sufficiantly of his substance 10 be in a position to state briefly that the memorial prayed that the two. Chinese gentle</ men, who had been banishad,' Mossma;) Chan Lo-chum and Chiu Sal-pok, may be allowed a bearing in their own defence. The petition bore some three hundred signstoren, toprakke . In reply to the memorial the petitionem 'have been, informed that the Governor would be willing to consider the question of the revocks! tion of the banishment orders in respect of the two Chinese gentleman named if they mould.. be prepared to adopt the same couren-kl. Was Waker by Hi. Chan Hang in. This prod individual had also been served with the WAN mat, bot (on his undertaking, to publish repudiation of his connection, with the anti- Mr. H. E. Pollock, C., instructed by Mr.Japanese boycott movement, the order was con H. J. Gedge (of Messrs, Johnson, Stokes andditionally aevoked. This was done upon the Master) appeared for the plaintiffs. The de appearance of an announcement in a verni- fendant was represented by Sir Henry Burke calar paper last week in bich Chân Blug- ley, K,C, with whom was Mr. J. Scott Harston kiu stated that his firm did not and does not (of Messrs. Eweps and Harston)...

contemplate the boycotting of Japanese 'mana-ize factures."

Mr. Pollock replied that delivery was always taken on the contract price. He then went on to deal with the question of damages resulting from the difference between the contract price (bigb) and the market price (low) at the time delivery was taken.

The case was again adjourned until to-mor row forenoon, when Mr. Pollock will contious, his argument.

"

As stated above, in obedience to the ban sho ment orders, Chan Lo-chon and Cha Sul- are reported to have taken on their reside pok bave already left this Colony and ence in Canton "It may reasonably be ex pected the Government's reply to the petition they are willing to accept the conditions has been communicated to them. Whether stipulated for the revocation of the orders against them remains to be seen.

· JUDGMENT RESERVED, · There was the 'nana! gathering of merchants and interested parties present fo the Supreme which Messrs. S. J. David and Company are Court, this forenoon, when the yara case—in ning their compradore (Mir. Chan Ut Chit) to Firstly, that the plaintifs could not soe,

recover over six Inkbs of dollars for certain Therefore the defendant was entitled to judsla yarn, and the counter-claim in which the losses they bad sustained in certain dealings ment in the abape the action was brought, compradors is seeking to recover his security and mem

($55,000)was resumed before the Chief Justice Mr. Pollock continued his argument in the same strain as was reported is our fast issue, lo

CA THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, the effect that the compradore was liable for. all losses the plaintiff Grm had incurred in their The reply the Chamber of Commercs, has dealings with Chinese yare buyers. The ad received from Government to their represent- dress was concluded shortly before one o'clock.ations does not appear to have been considered entirely satisfactory,!: As far as it can be His Lordabig reserved his decision,

gathered the Government defined its action in the statement made by thei; Registrar: General for publication in the native press, an | English rendering of which/sppeared

Secondly, that the mortgage having heen made to A: 1. David, it could not be incorpor sed into the agreement of S. J. David and

Company.

"FOUR FOR BACH"

GOVERNMENTS REILY ZOST

4. The defendant admits that the plaintiffs, | while he war in their employ, inquired or suse 3. In reply to paragraph 7 of the statement tained certain losses in connection with the of defence, the plaintiffs say as follows:-The sale of goods to Chinese, but denies that the plaintiffs voluntarily and without any Agree firm's losses in respect of such matters amount Meat being entered into for thats purpose and to $648,816.67 or to any sum nearly as large, without receiving any consideration, forbere at and says that he at compradore is not liable to the request of and to meet the convenience of pay the said sum or any part thereof and that those Chinese whose contracts were included in When he stated in the declaration in paragraph the claim in this action and with the knowledge 4 of the statement of claim referred to, that he and assent of the defendant to press the sald was indebted in the sum, he mistakenly believed Chat, due dates for the delivery thereof, Chinesesto take delivery of their goods on the If the defendant ir liabin in pay and the plaintiff have under circumstances the said sam or any part-thereof which he aforesaid rightly calculated that ofim again Mr. Pollock-Can my friend more fat, 1962 defendant, and, unless they could nkowalik | PRICE OF SCHOOL BOYS' "CHOW" DISCUSSED, . "Sue" of "Monaky,ET het imployment-i denies, the defendant is labis only as surety the said Chloess and against the defendant as for the Chinese with whom the plaintiffs cater on the 8th day of January, 1907, the date of the ed luta contracts and the plaintiffs have lost all writ of summons herein, on, which date the rights against the defendant by entering into plaintiffs declined to exercise any further for agreements in the early part of August, 1906, bearance. The plaintiffs had in fact goods in and the early part of September, 1906, to give band at the due date for delivery thoroof time to the Chinese for taking delivery of the 6. In reply to paragraph 8 of the statement goods the plaintiffs had contracted to sell to the of defence, the plaintiffs say as follows:—The Chinese

Roods imported by the plaintiffs were imported to meet and allocated to particular contracts. against the defendant credited the defendant with the amounts received, by them in respect

6. At the time the plaintiffs entered into the were unable to deliver a substantial proportion of the goods which they had contracted to do

Sir Henry-On the facts of the case I move for Judgment. If I am unable to get it, then I ask for an inquiry to be directed similar to the one of Chan Kes and S115000's.

Counsel then asked permission to put in cartala documents as evidence.

Mr. Pollock-My friend cannot put in any thing as evidence without calling evidence.

Sir Henry. These documents are admitted

The Chief Justice You cumanis, but you can't interpret them,

These documents could not be read together. Assuming, that, they could be there was not single word in the agreement which could he construed to hold the defendant liable, it ones was on them to do so; and to show that had not been proved by the plaintiffs, and the what losses they sustained wens due to the

the six lakhs worn 'lost through dafandanı's acta or omissions they could not recover,

At this stage, the Chiŋf Justice asked that Mr. Shroff be re-called to the stand.

The Chief Justice-You are book-keeper to the firm 7-Ye do with regard to the com-

How do you pradore's books? Are they translated P-Yas

Are the compradore's books a facttmáje 10 the English book ?--Yen.

Are the compradora knows what you are

Therefore no items books which are not in the

roth just.

· Chinese character in particular in the stateme in' ques'ion: pais), the, interpretation of "the In the Supreme Court, this morning, before Government's attitude in a light different from

(that which “the Coficial@translation:?? Mr. Justice Gompers Man Yeung Chl, a to imply Our own information' to that brought an action against Mok Lol Pao, which is that generally accepted by the widow. residing at too, Hollywood Road, character was capable of no other compradore, of 31 and 35, Gage Street, to re-reader, and işle believed that, in coast cover the sum of $1,000 under a promissory further representations, will bw: addre nota made In favour of Man lo (deceased) Government with view of a There was counter-claim for Srats, the amount alleged to be due to plaintif by the authoritative Goverment

agreements, the plaintiffs had not got and The plaintiff have in making up their claims by the other side, you can put in the do- doing?--Yes, would appear in your deceased, Man fp, for leding his thres son publicly made which will remova liver and of which the don date for delivery had of the sales of gonds' ander, those.contracts took place at the meeting of yarn merchant books? Yes. Predore's The sum of 523x was wäived by plaintiff so apparently exists in the minde

anired and by means of the said agreements they obtained time to oblain the said goods from

abroad. The defendant is unable to give particulars of the goods which the plalatifs were unable to deliver on the due data for the delivery thereof, but particulars appear in the books of the defendant kept when he was in the plaintiffs' service.

of

which are included under such claim,

7. In reply to paragraph 9 of the statement of defence, the plaintiffs say as follows: The plaintiffs admit that they have received macies and they admit that they have not credited the defendant with the same, nor with the difference between the sound value of the damaged goods and the price at which they were sold or were or are saleable. The pisintiffs, however, deny that the defendant was

de Supposing (bere was any failure on

the

Bir Renry-These documents relate to what

it to bring the maltar within the jurisdiction. and importers.

Chistes

part Mr. C. F. Dixon, of Musum, Hastings, and of customer, would you inform the compradore Hastings, appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. G. or would, he inform you? The compradore Morrell, of Messrs. Goldring, Barlow and Mor would inform to rally defended

The Chief Justice--I don't think there is ground for a non-svil KEA PSE

Sir Henry No, no 1 am not moving now for a non-suit. What I say is that on the facts already presented 1 sm entitled to judgment.

The Chief Ipstice-You can do that. The documents referred to were admitted, after they had been inspected by the Court, Henry."

Supposing there were any compromises Mr. Dixon said that the defendant, admitted effected, supposing there were payments in the claim, bankruptcy, would you inform the compradors? Mr. Morrell denied that His client admit

Henry He is only the book-keeper, my ted signing the promissory note, but the plain-

tiff, owed his client money, too,

community in Hongkong.

SHOPKEE

(YOKIE

„The six man who wire

Lands Chiaf justice-Vas, but he ought to illis paid dignis cater to an het to, the word an

know,

The witness's repl

reply was inaudible. cheon,

anything

7. If the defendant is liable to pay the som or any part thereof, which the defendant than the difference between the price at which amounts Madhus, quod mig lei ovat

E. In reply to paragraph to of the statement SIR HENRY'S ADDRESS. the goods were contracted to be sold and the market price at the dates on which delivery of defence, the plaintiffs say as follows:7he Sir Henry then proceeded to present hir

At one o'clock the Court adjourned for lan the goods should have been taken and plaintiffs bare not entered into Agreements of views. He began by saying that the partias such godown rant, insurance and other charges compromise with any persons or firms excope saty, class and Chan Ut chin (defendant), waive bis nght to cross-examine My, Shroff on in the were Mers, &. David and Com Resuming, Sir Henry said that he did not at were then; payable by the purchasers of the the Fook Hing and Kwong Hing.drms. goods in the case of goods which the plain aceans of the plaintiffs against the Fook The action was confined to claim to recover, the account books and as to stocks of yarn in Tat had ie band at the due date for the delivery Hing and Kwong Hing firms are not includ damages from the defendant to recoup the the godown in order to mess the contracta thetopf, and is not liable to pay anything in the led in the claim of the plaintiff in this "action plaintiffs for losses sustained by them on Counsel then continued with his address. He of goods which the plainties had ant in and accordingly the state of the account be contract for the sals of yarn to certain Chiniae said that the defendant had succeded on the hand at the due date for the delivery thereof, tween, the plaintiffs, and the Fook Hing and merchants, for whom the defendant was mated countne-clain and judgment for $55,000 should ***8. The goods, inported by the plaintiffs Kwong Hing Arms le altogether irrelevant to as surely. That was the specific, action, and be entered in his favour.. His reasons for ad- to meet their contracts to all goods were this present action, it remik add the question now was whether the plaintifs vancing that were that contingencies which Lave in so far as this reply contains ad were entitled to recover this num, or any sum should have Instified their setention, had not not allocated to particular contracts ---- plaintiff, prior to the date of the issue missions of the truth of the statements in the from the defendant for their losses. As ipatify, arisan pull overr of the writ of summons herein ded' after statement of defence the plaintifs foin lese ing their claim the plaiquifis uid in paragraph. POLLOCK'S REPLY,vt

POLLOCK'S REPLY, -failore of purchasess toʻtake: delivery of upon the statement of defence, except in so far three in their statement ef, claim; The de BEKO Blt Henry concluded: his address, t. Me:Dixon-Yo

sold on the due dates, sold and delivered

-The

as it contains adimissions of the statements in tendant part of the consideration for

do purchasers, who had failed to take delivery, Arlo the Cotratar chimy dom and have not brought inté account in their toy The plaintika crave, leave to refer to and clalor against the defendant the amounts repeat the statements which are contained in received by them in respect of such sales.?The the statement of claim, and in this reply,

defendant is anable to give particulars of such 11. The sum of $55,000.00 which is rafer

les, But fullparticulars can be obtained from

of the

g Goods Imported by the plaintiffs to meet

a paragraph of the Counter-clalog was

pd by The defendant with the pla remains in the Bands of the

their contracts to sell goods in respect of which y for the due performance

are made against the defendant in this his obligations to the

action wares destroyed or damaged by the Agreements which an

of the 18th September, 190p and in hereof,

Morms, and camefice and the timeles

#monies in respect of such ridend D

San Chaung, at West Point cause grievous bodily harm, the Police Court this sternoon wurder.

the mustar of Frattat It will be members. Road West and the mix

are so it is stated Some time at the begi were ; dlacharied,

His Lontibip gava judgment and costs in your of the ple Stay of execution was

Mira, Dixon, stated that a few days ago be The cross-action was then heard. applied to the Court to order. his friend. to give particulars of this claim. He telephoped his friend yesterday afternoon, but so far he had not got the

rave my kjend thei Jars this morning,

Mr. Dixon (picklog op a half sheet paper report is true, that on which was written half a line). These are angered the gaze the particulars I got Thras sons at dollars each (Laughter

Mr. Jestics Gompetit

arge

called the compradore that he was let the am

pradore, agreed to pay to the plaintifaquoy that his friend and raised, anjing deficiency in the price of goods which (while ment on plaintiffs' claim--an argument based the delendang should be such compradore) upon entleg misconception.in shonld be sold at agreed to, be sold by the plaints clim, wall mand platausa colday: Chinese, person or person

to

fitm, company

poration/with,

i want datas} {**W