May 29, 1895.
FINANCING THE INDEMNITY.
Peking, 7th May, A dierso has been sent to the high provincial authorities engaged in collecting war funds and war loans tỏ hànd the results to the Inspectorate General of Customs instead of to the Board of Reredus. This order is inade owing to the grant ing of power to Sir Robert Hart to finance the ar indemnity to Japan. It is affirmed that the of twenty-six million taels has been already collected in this connection throughout the Empire, with a promise of thirty million taels more by the end of September. The savings of HIM. the Empress-Dowager for the last thirty yades amount to very nearly thirteen million tele, which Her Majesty has authorised the Emperor to apply to the purpose of paying off
apanomil. E. Daily News.
SUPREME COURT*
14th May.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION. BEFORE HIS HONOUR ME. T.SEECOMBE SMITH
(ACTING PUisne Judge.)
Mr. Gedge (of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master's oMoe) appeared for Messrs. Linstead 1 Davis, and Mr. E. C. Ellis (of Mr. V. H. média's mflos). for Mr. Griffith. In regard to the first claim Mr. Ellis said he tad the debt, and judgment was thereupon gisan. [fór - Motora. Linstead and Davis. It only a question, therefore, of the coëuberalaima. Mr. Grißlth made up his claim olidainagé bý loss of megatives; photographs, oil paintings, water colours, and mounts.
›
;
|
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
2.
Mr. E. C. Ellis (from Mr. V. H. Deacon's office) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. H. L. Dennys for the defendant.
16th May.
383
iN APPELLATE JURISDICTION. BEFORE HIS HONOUR ME. W. M. GOODMAN (ACTING CHIEF JUSTIOR) and Mé, T. SERCOMBE SMITH (ACTING PUISNE JUAGE),
HILL V. GOMES.
Mr. J. B. Gomes appealed against the judg. ment of the Hon. A. G. Wise, in the notion in which Mr. R. H. Hill recovered the sum of $1,000 in respect of calls on 50 shares in the Labak Planting Co.
Mr. J. J. Francis, Q.C. (instructed by Mr. C. D. Wilkinson), appeared for the appellant, and Mr. E. H. Sharp (instructed by Mr. J. Hastings, from Mr. V. H. Deacon's office) re- presented the respondent.
In the Court below it was held that Mr.h Gomes was responsible for the calls on the shares, which were sold by the respondent to the appel- lant in 1889.
#
Mr. Francis said the facts of the case were not disputed. The appeal was on a point of law, and his case was that there was no indemnity, either expressed or implied, between the parties. transfer of the shares, and judgment was re- A lengthy legal argument ensued as to the served.
17th May.
IN BANKRUPTCY.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR MR. W. M. GOODMAN, "ACTING CHIEF JÚSTICE.
plaintiff from the fact that no member of the Company appears ever to have heard of the re
Hardy's position at Bombay and Caloutta. He Further, I am not satisfied that Mr. Hardy ever His Lordship said-First, as regards Mr. Hardy for Mr. Smith until a few days awa ceipt of this money or of payments made by Mr.
says "When I left Caloutta my position was un- defined " and "after Penang I acted as advancement of accounts prior to bis arrest, for which made a demand on the defendant for a settle- agent" and "I was proprietor of another company an action was brought. Mr. Hardy himself saYS, which finished just before we start d out on this." I first gave Mr. Smith an account of the 1,550 trip."___ The relationship between Mr. Smith and Mr. Hardy at the beginning of the present these circumstance my judgment is for defen- rupees after my arrest by Mr. Smith.” Under venture was then not that of joint proprietors dant, with costs. and I can find no evidence to show that Mr. Hardy was olothed with any authority by Mr. Smith to pay moneys ont of his own pocket and to be recouped therefor by Mr. Smith. After leaving Caloutts, Mr. Hardy seems to have been autho- | rised to receive the proceeds of the performances and to hand them to Mr. Smith if present and to account for same to Mr. Smith if absent. After Penang, Mr. Hardy soted in addition 18 advance agent at $50 a week. Mr. Hardy says that he paid all the items in his particulars of claim at the request of Mr. Smith, who, however, denies this and says that he either paid the sums himself or gave Mr. Hardy the money to do so. In this respect one man's word is as good as the other's. Second. As regards the memorandum book, I cannot conclude that the items entered therein Linstrad and Davis v. GrifFITH. were not entered until plaintiff was in Hongkong.
·Monera. Instead and Davis brought an action The mere fact, however, of the existence of these against Mr. D. K. Grifith, photographer, to entries (whenever they were made) does not rosovár $100, arrears of rent of 2, Duddell Street, prove that they were a record of payments made dué from the defendant. There was a counter-by plaintiff out of his own pocket on behalf of the olim by Mr. Griffith against Messrs. Linstead defendant and their presence is not inconsistent and Deris for $221, being the amount of damage with the assumption that they were made in med to property of the plaintiff in November, order to preserve an account of payments made 1884 by rain leaking through the roof of 2, by plaintiff out of moneys advanced to him by Duidell Street, owing to want of sufficient the defendant. This alternative explanation is rogkir.
not inconsistent with the insertion of prior entries of moneys received on account of formances, as I take them to be, and is
per strengthened by the circumstances relating to the payments to Messrs. D. C. Smith and Durant. Take Mr. D. C. Smith's case first. Mr. Hardy says. "One rupee was advanced on journey from Bombay to Calontta; five rupees on plat- form at Calcutta; balance on boat between Cal- catte and Rangoon. Mr. Smith told me to do this and told Mr. D. C. Smith to get this money from me.” Mr. D. C. Smith says, "When leav. ing Caloutts for Rangoon Mr. Hardy made no advance. Mr. Smith paid me the money. Mr. Hardy was not present. On the steamer I got five rupees from Mr. Smith, who told me that Mr. Hardy would give me ten rupees which he had given Mr. Hardy for me. me the ten rupees at end of journey.'
Mr. Hardy gave Mr. Saville Smith says, "I hardly remember And about the 16 rupees to D. C. Smith. Mr. Hardy got the money from me to do it, if he paid the money." Then there was an item of two rupees, which apparently was paid on the train by Mr. Hardy to Mr. D. C. Smith at Mr. Saville Smith's request and was afterwards deducted from Mr. D. C. Smith's salary. Mr. Hardy said he had no money, though he seems to have paid the sum eventually. The deduction of this amount from Mr. D. C. Smith's salary is consistent with Mr. Hardy paying incidental expenses either out of his own money or out of funds in band belonging to Mr. Saville Smith. In re- spect of the five rupees paid to Mr. Durant, Mr. Hardy says, "Paid Mr. Durant five rupees on platform at Calcutta," whilst Mr. Durant says, "I have no knowledge of 5 rupees alleged to be advanced me by Mr. Hardy for Mr. Smith. The only money I ever got in Bombay and Caloutta" was from Mr. Smith." Third. As re- gards the 1,800 rupees alleged by Mr. Hardy to have been received by him in Bombay, Mr. Hardy is very hazy concerning his transactions with the Bank in this matter. He says that he wrote for the money about the beginning of this year he thinks, and that he does not suppose the money came by telegram. If he could have given dates, this question could have been cleared up. It is quite as likely as not that Mr. Hardy so- tually received this money. The point is, did hø either tell Mr. Smith that he had received it, or having told him did he pay any part of it to Mr. Smith ? Here again it is merely one man'a word against another man's so that I must con- alude that Mr. Hardy has not proved that he the two men were in the cabin, and in conse. The Acting Attorney-General stated that made any advance to Mr. Smith out of these 1,800 quence of an escape of steam or soxiding water rupees. The inconsistencies in the statements from the boiler they received such injuries thNE of Miss Hawthorne and Mr. Montgomery make they died. The escape came through the sludge their evidence inconclusive; whereas on other hand I draw no conclusion against the its place by a nut. There was a packing of the door, which was screwed down and confined in
The qulaintif mid the glass of the studio was blown out during the typhoon at the beginning of October last year, and the rain entered the robes in torrents, and destroyed everything in ha nom. The total amount of the damage was $1,000, and he attributed part of the damage to the defendants neglecting to put the place in prøper repair. In 1890 he entered into an agree. mont for a lease, and he was to pay $100 a month rent, and also the taxes. In 1894, however, he said that he could not afford to pay the rent, and it was agreed to let him bave the premises at $70 a month. The written agreement set forth that Messrs. Linstead and Davis were to keep the premises in proper repair, but after the rent was reduced they did not do so.
For the defence Mr. Gedge said the defendants did not contract to put the premises in repair, and they could not be bound to do so unless they had entered into a contract. When the reduction in the rent was made the agreement was put an end to, and the plaintiff had no claim whatever against the defendants. Nothing was heard of the damage until the plaintiff was sued
for rent.
Mr. Ellis said that an agreement in writing would not be put an end to or altered by ang thing that was spoken. On the defendants' own admission there was nothing in writing which would put an end to or alter the agreement. If it had been intended to have put an end to the agreement there would have been some writing
ut upon it.
His Lordship said that he was not satisfied that the plaintiff had made out his case, and the verdict would be for the defendants, with costs. 15th May.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION, BEFORE HIS HONOUR MR. T. SERCOMBE
SMITH (ACTING PUISNE JUDGE), HARDY Y. SAVILLE SHITO-JUDGMENT. Judgment was given in the notion brought by F. Brett: Hardy against Saville Smith to recover Be, 1;552.7. money alleged to have been lent to, and paid on behalf of, the defendant.
"}
IN RE TU CHUNG NG
order was made on the 8th February, 1895, on His Lordship said-In this case the receiving the debtor's own petition. The public examina- tion was held on the 12th March, 1895, and closed on the 11th April. 1895. I cannot say I considered the result of the examination at all tors was held on the 2nd May and as no resolu- satisfactory. The adjourned meeting of predi- tion was passed under section 19 of the Bank ruptcy Ordinance, 1891, I adjudicate the debtor bankrupt on his application and appoint the Official Receiver as Trustee.
|
|
Mr. Ho Wyson appeared for the debtor,
IN RE LAM PAK HANG.
His Honour adjudicated the debtor bankrupt and appointed Mr. Seth the Official Receiver, who was also nominated by the creditors to be Trustee under the bankruptcy. It appeared the receiving order was granted on 15th February, 1895. The first meeting of creditors was held on 4th April and adjourned for the public ekamina- tion, which was held on 11th April. The ad- journed meeting of creditors was held on 9th May, when the creditors resolved that the debtor should be adjudicated bankrupt.
Mr. Grist appeared for the debtor.
18th May.
IN CRIMINAL SESSIONS. BEFORE THE HON. W. M. GooDMAN (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE).
THE FATALITY ON THE PRUDENCE.” denes, was indicted for causing the death of Chin Kee, engineer of the steam lannoh Pru- two Chinese seamen on board the Prudence on the 11th inst.
li
Prisoner pleaded not guilty.
Wise) appeared for the Urown.
The Acting Attorney-General (Ron. A. G.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.