The-Hong-Kong-Weekly-Press-1895-03-28 — Page 10

230

THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND

practicable.—I have the honour to be, sir, your ment, and the whole amount was $1,103 59. Mr.

most obedient servant,

FRANCIS A. Cooper, Director of Pablio Works, The Honourable the Colonial Secretary,

THE WATEr accounT. The following statement of Water Account to 31st December, 194, was laid before the Legis- lative Council on Weduesday, the 20th inst, :- Statement of Water Account to

Expendi. Receipts. 31st December, 1994. Treasury in account with

Water Account.

To balance

To maintenance of water works. To city of Victoria water works.

(new water mains)..

To Kowloon water supply

To cash payments by Treasury

for water account

To stores

By accounts rendered to Treasury $17,698.97 less $16.23 written

off (C.8.0. 2,358 of 1894)

By transfer to store account......

By rates

By balanco

March 15th, 1895)

C.

17,682.74

40

62,700.00

Hill paid the call and interest uuder pressure ; if he had not done so witness would have been obliged to sue him for the amount

In answer to Mr. Wilkinson witness said that in regard to fifty of the hundred shares in Mr Hill's name the second and third call were paid by Mr. Brodie, and the fourth by Mr. T. I. Rose, and the fifth by Mr. Hill. Mr. Hill had paid the calls on the other fifty shares.

Mr. P. Jordan, of the firm of Messrs. Chator and Vernon then entered the box. He was about to be examined by Mr. Hastings when he re- marked-B fore I give evidence I should like e. to know if I am to be remunerated for this, 76,857.63 | because my time is valuable.

lure.

7,087.52 His Lordship-You put to me a conundrum

1,134.15 80,909.05

325.44

that I cannot answer.

Witness-Can I put the question-Who sub- pœnaed me?

His Lordship-You have got your subpœns, 2,377.14 and you will find the name at the bottom.

Mr. Hastings-Mr. Jordan has been poenaed by the plaintiff, and he will be entitled to his usual fee as allowed by the Registrar.

His Lordship-I do not think you will be entitled to an extra fee-only entitled to a fee as expert. That is a question for the Registrar, and one that I cannot go into.

69,268.09

149,651.23 149,651.23 FRANCIS A. COOPER, Water Authority.

SUPREME COURT.

19th March.

IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION. BEFORE HIS HONOUR MB. A. G. WISE, ACTING FUISNE JUDGE.

A DISFUTED SHARE TRANSACTION. An action was brought by Mr. R. H. Hill against Mr. J. B. Gomes to recover $1,103.59 paid by plaintiff in respect of certain shares bought by the defendant.

Mr. Wilkinson-I trust it will not concern me (langhter).

Mr. Hastings-That is a matter to be as certained hereafter.

Witness then spoke to receiving instructions from Messrs. Bradley and Co. to sell certain Labuk shares. On April 12th, 1889, he sold fifty shares belonging to Mr. ilill to Mr. R. A. Gub- bay, a broker, for $750. As the shares were not fully paid witness particularly mentioned to Mr. Gubbay that he was bound to transfer the shares to the purchaser's name.

•

[March 28, 1895.

question and one which I shall be very happy to see an appeal in. I will then give my reasons for the judgment. At present I do not feel in- clined to give them. I may say, Mr. Wilkinson, with all dus deference to you, that I have not been impressed with the force of your arga. ment.I do not mean by that that it was ridiculous.

20th March.

IN ORIGINAL JurisdictioN.

BEFORE HIS HONOUR MR. W. M. GoODMAN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE.

BELILIOS v. NG lee sin

CE

The following decision was delivered in Cham. bors by His Honour Acting Chief Justice Goodman-In this case the completion of certain dwelling bouses, then in course of erection, wAE Y prevented and delayed for some ten months by an interim injunction granted, on the 14th On- subtober, 1892, at the instance of Mr. Belitios and upon his giving the usual undertaking for damages. Eventually the injunction was, on 25th August, 1893, dissolved by the Court, by consent of the parties. it appearing from an | English decision that Mr. Belilios could not in ancient point of law support his claim for lights" as against the defendant. The comple- tion of the houses having thus been wrongfully delayed the question of damages was referred to the Registrar, who conducted a long and careful inquiry and on the 3rd November, 1894, certified the amount of such damages as he allowed. It seems, however, that the defendant's legal advisers were dissatisfied with that certificate on two points. They were not satisfied with (a) the refusal of the Registrar to allow a large clnim for interest on money borrowed by the building contractor for payment of work'uen and carrying In cross-examination witness said that in 1889.

out the contract, and (b) the refusal of the 10 there was a brisk business in shares, but he dis-Registrar to allow an item of claim for tinctly remembered the transaction. Mr. Hill's months rent of premises at $100 per month,” 4.6, rent which the defendant alleges would have shane was on ta scrip. Mr. R. A. Gubbay

share broker, said that on been obtained if the buildings could have been 12th April he bought 50 Lack shares frodum matter 10 months earlier than they were, the Messrs Chater and Vernon for Mr. Gone gainst

months having boon caused, the interim injunction. paid $750 for the shares, which were delivered | defendant alleges, by the

no other ob- Mr. Halfinmond that the olsim was for the | to the defendant on 25th April.

Being so dissatisfied, but raising

by the Afth call paid on 50 shares of the Labak Plant-

jections to any other items disposed ing Company, The plaintiff was a member of

Mr. Wilkinson said the defendant did not | Registrar, the defendant's solicitor took one the firm of Messrs. Bradley & Co., of Swatow believe he purchased these shares, and counsel summons to take the opinion of the Acting Camy and Hongkong, and he had fifty shares in the could not go further than that. He did not Justice upon the certificate and asking for lleg Labuk Planting Company registered in his therefore think it necessary to put the defendant order that the certificate might be reviewed 21. name. The scrip for these shares with the blank in the witness box,

altered. On the hearing of the summons before has transfer attached was handed to the defendant

Mr. Francis, Q.C., appearing in support of a by on 12th April, 1889. At that time the shares

application and Mr. Leach. Q.C. (Acting A.-G. s were not fully paid up; in fact, puly one or two

appearing to oppose it, I intimated my opinet calls had been made upon them. Nothing fur-

that the claim for interest could not be supported, ther was heard by the plaintiff of these shares

and Mr. Francis having agreed to abandon that until a demand was made on him for a call in

item of claim, all that remains is to dispose of 1892. At the request of the liquidators of the

the claim for rent, The summons as regards Company he had to pay that call. He paid $750,

that matter asks that the certificate may be re which was at the rate of $15 per share, and

viewed or altered in the following respect :- $353.59 interest at 12 per cent, per annum from 15th January, 1891, to 20th Decemb, 1894. He now claimed to be indemnified by his purchaser. Counsel's contention was that on every sale of shares there was an implied contract by the pur- ehaser to indemnify the vendor against all pay ments of future calls on those shares. The sale of shares implied that the purchaser assumed, from the time of the sale, all the liabilities of the shares.

Deacon's

Mr. J. Hastings (from Mr. V. office) represented the plaintiff and Mr. C. D. Wilkinson appeared for the defendant.

/ dlr. Wilkinson—I dispute that under certain circumstances.

This was the case for the plaintiff.

His Lordship-I do not think so, bec iuse I must hold that he bought the shares. Mr. Gomes has forgotten the transaction, for it is impos- sible to go behind Mr. Gubbay's evidence that the shares were delivered to Mr. Gomes. I dare say Mr. Gomes was doing other transactions and he does not know anything about this one.

Mr. Wilkinson-In that case I shall call no evidence at all.

Mr. Hastings-I produce the cheque given by Mr. Gomes for the shares.

Mr. Hastings then quoted several cases in support of his contentions, and said that when the plaintiff sold the shares to the defendant there was a liability on them, and in buying them the defendant undertook to indemnify plaintiff against the liability when he should be called upon to pay it.

|

+4

By: finding that the defendant has sustained (over and above the loss and damage certified and allowed by the Acting Registrar) loss and dam- age by reason of the stoppage of the building operations from the said 14th day of October, 1892, to the said 25th day of August, 1893, and was kept out of the rents and profits thereof for the said period and ought to be allowed compen sation on the basis of the letting value of the Mr. Wilkinson, for the defence, said that said buildings ”—and asks for an order referring admitting for the sake of argument that these the said certificate back to the Acting Registrar particular shares were sold by the plaintiff to take further evidence (if necessary) and assess through his brokers to the defendant through the damages on the above flatug. The case of his broker, the defendant was not liable upon Smith v. Day, LR, Ch. V. p 421, Was the authority of the cases cited by Mr. Hastings. cited by canes on both sides. A blank transfer was handed over to him, and decided at when the defendant alleged he that transfer the defendant was never called lost benefit of an advantageous special upon to execute and did not execute. The agent to take part of his premises at a Mr. R. Richardson produced a general file plaintiff parted with the shares before any callba rental for 7 years owing to an interim in. function which prevented their completion for of attorney. He was a member of the firm of had been made upon them. Messrs. Bradley and Co. and a partner of the His Lordship-But not before any liability me months, he could not recover that special plaintiff. Plaintiff held 100 shares in the Mr. Wilkinson contended that the poon of loss as daages, even if he could prove it, because Labak Plauting Co. in his name. He had 50 affairs was exactly the same as in still in his possession; the remainder he sold | which were in his favour. He fundertain cases | sich a los is too remote.it is not one which is

Counsel, proceeding, said it was quite im- material whether the purchaser had parted with the shares, because, as between him self and the second purchaser, there was an absolute contract of indemnity. Evidence was then called.

=

*

through Messrs. Chater and Vernon.

that the person with whom the ther submitted Mr. J. H. Cox, one of the liquidators of the was Mr. Gubbay, and that there plaintiff dealt Labuk Planting Company, produced a print of at any time between the planting was no boutraat Ga the end. the articles of association, and said that ant.

recisel originally Mr. Hill held 100 shares in the com- His Lordship-In ref of to this case, under pany On 21st December Inst Mr. Hill paid ordinary circumstan as there have been the fifth call on fifty of his shares; each share many cases cited, Ifanould have reserved my was $15, and the total amount was $750. He decision, but link the point should be also paid interest at the rate of 12 per cent. settled at once I shall give judgment for the from January 15th, 1891, to the date of pay. plaintiff a costs. It is a very important

That osso

the proximate an tural result of the interim innotion and no notice of the existence of the special agreement had been given to the plain- tiff in the action. As Brett. L. J., put it (page 428)"The fact that the injunction prevented the carrying out of an entirely independent agreement as to the property is to remote." The question whether, where no such special loss

is

claimed, a claim for loss of the value of the expectation of ordinary rent from ordi, ary tenants ought to be admitted was not doidede

Page 10Page 11