46
nesses. If the staff was short now I would consider your application, but if Mr. Gaskell is there to-day I am afraid I cannot excuse you. Mr. Baxter-We are making up our half- yearly acounts now. I sent in a written application to be excused to the Deputy Registrar.
His Lordship-No application has come to me. How can the Registrar deal with anything that has to do with a jury? The only person who can deal with the jury is the Judge.
Mr. Baxter-May I read what I wrote P His Lordship--The facts that applied then do not apply now.
Mr. Baxter-Our work has been thrown in arrear through Mr. Gaskell being laid up!
His Lordship directed the Clerk of the Court to inquire why the Registrar bad not sent Mr. Baxter's application to him. The application ought to have been sent to the Judge.
Mr. Baxter was then allowed to stand aside and Mr. A. Bane was called in his place.
His Lordship (to Mr. Baxter)-Under the will not call upon you circumstances I this time. This is not the first time have heard of that letter. I know you wrote one, but I have not seen it. It ought to have come to.me.
:
Mr. Gedge then opened the case and read the plandings. At one time the plaintiff was an overseer in the employ of the defendant at a monthly wage of $12, plus $3 for food and $3 for boat and ricksha hire, the dendant being a contractor residing at 36, Holly. wood Road. During the latter part of the year defendant and two other men were engaged as contractors for the Hongkong Land Investment and Agency Company, Limited, their work being to pull down forty houses and erect other buildings on the site. On the 14th January last defendant was sued by a Chinese firm for $251.16, being the price of bricks sold and delivered on the building works carried on by the defendant. Defendant dis- puted his liability and the plaintiff gave evidence De- against him at the hearing of the case. fendant lost the case. He was further sned for $393.91, being the price of timber sold and de- livered and judgment was given against him in this case as well. There were also other cases in which he figured as defendant and lost; and in each one. the plaintiff gave evidence in support of the claim. At and after the hearing of the suits the plaintiff was in the service of the defendant and the defendant was indebted
to him in the sum of $103, being the balance On the due by plaintiff for six months' wages. 27th January an emissary of the defendant went to the plaintiff's house and informed him that if he would go to 14, Possession Street the defendant would pay him the money that was owing to him. Plaintiff went and defend- ant voluntarily handed him $100 in discharge of all lawful claims, Plaintiff received the sum in good faith in satisfaction of all claims and he used no menaces whatever. Defendant then caused the plaintiff to be arrested by a Chinese constable who was in the house at the time for
that purpose, as it afterwards transpired.
80.
|
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
went to the defendant and said and he plaintiff was prepared to give no further evidence against the defendant in any future actions which might be brought against him by creditors provided that defendunt paid to the plaintiff the sum of $100. Defendant procured
money
was
a Chinese detective and with him went to 14, Possession Street. Here plaintiff said that he would give no further evidence against defen- dant if defendant paid him $100. If the not paid plaintiff said he would induce other men to give false pro- Defendant missory notes and he would himself give evidence against the defendant. handed over $100 to the plaintiff and then had him arrested by the Chinese constable who was taken to the house. Defendant charged plaintiff with obtaining money by menaces with intent to steal the same and he denied that such charge was false and malicious.
7th July.
After all the evidence on both sides had been called Mr. Slade addressed the jury and sub- mitted that when the defendant made the charge against the plaintiff he believed it to be true.
Mr. Gedge, in his address, said he had proved the bad character of the defendant, who was willing to do anything to es- cape the claims of his creditors. Judgment had been given against him in various cases to the amount of $15,000 or $16,000 and he had made over all his property to his wife, con- cubines, and relatives.
His Lordship, in summing up, said the ques- tion which the jury had to decide was a simple one. It was, did the defendant go to the house in Possession Street, to get his wages or to get a bribe to shut his mouth? The wages book had been produced and from that there was no doubt 8103 was due to the plaintiff as wages. If the jury thought that the defendant did not honestly believe in the truth of the charge they had to consider the amount of damages and say whether $500, the sum claimed as damages, was too much to award the plaintiff. If the defend- aut did not believe in the charge he had com- mitted perjury at the Police Court anil bad cou- tinued to commit perjury.
The jury were of opinion that the defendant did not honestly believe in the truth of the charge.
His Lordship said on that finding he held there was a want of reasonable and probable cause and the verdict would be for the plaintiff. What did the jury assess as the amount of dam- ages?
The jury intimated that they had fixed the damages in a lump sum of 8600.
His Lordship-Verdict for the plaintiff for $600 and costs.
8th July.
E. A. BISCHOFF v. G. A. WATKINS,
A DEAL IN PUNJOMS,
Plaintiff sought to recorer $587.50 from the defendant, money due in respect of a transaction in shares.
Mr. G. C. C. Master appeared for the plain- tiff and Mr. J. Hastings for the defendant.
Mr. Master said this was a claim arising out of a breach of a share contract, the contract, dated 22nd February, being for the purchase from the plaintiff by the defendant of 250 Punjom shares for delivery on the 31st May at $11 per share. Correspondence, which was admitted, had passed on both sides. On the 12th May the defendant wrote to the plaintiff
as follows:-
Plaintiff was taken to the Police Station and charged with feloniously and with menaces demanding the sum of $100 from the defendant. On the 27th, 28th, 29th January, and the 1st February defendant feloniously and maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause appeared before Commander Hastings, Acting Police Magistrate, and prosecnted his charge against the plaintiff and pressed it, em- ploying counsel
on his behalf in doing On the 1st February the plaintiff was committed for trial at the Criminal Sessions, bail being allowed in the sum of $1,000. The plaintiff was acquitted by the jury and he now alaimed $295, expenses incurred in defending himself at the Police Court and Criminal Sessions, $18 one month's wages, and $500 dam- ages, together with the costsoot the suit. *De- fendant, in answer to the plaintiff's petition, said the plaintiff was never employed by him in any capacity whatever. Defendant was not now resident and never did reside at 36, Holly- wood Road, He denied having been ex- gaged as a contractor for the Hongkong Land Investment and Agency Company, Limited, In reply the plaintiff wrote as follows:-' but admitted being sued by various firms. The
Hongkong, 16th May, 1897. emissary mentioned in plaintiff's petition Dear Sir,-In answer to your favour of 12th May I am was not defendant's emissary but plaintiff's,willing to carry the 250 Punjoms sold under contract to
Hongkong, 12th May, 1897. Dear Sir,--So far as I can at present see it will be im- rent month. Will you carry these for me till July or possible for me to take up 250 Punjoms due end of cur- August, when I shall be in a position to take them up. I will willingly pay you any reasonable interest for doing £0. If you eau oblige me it will save me from a serious loss. It is advisable you should know this before the time comes in ease you are depending upon me to take them up.
Sincerely Youre,
G. A. WATKINS.
E. Bischoff, Esq.,
[July 15, 1897.
your firm till July or August provided you pay the differ- ence between the amount dus and the market value on
Yours truly, 14 31st May.
G. A. Watkins, Esq."
E. BISCHOFF.
to the defendant and is addressed to Messrs. The next letter was written by the plaintiff Watkins and Co.:-
28th May, 1897.
Dear Sirs, With reference to my letter, to which you have not replied, I beg to inform you that I have in the meantime made engagements which do not allow me to carry the 250 Punjoms any longer than 31st May.
Yours truly,
E. BISCHOFF.
Messrs. Watkins & Co.
On the 31st May plaintiff wrote to the de-
fendant as follows
31st May, 1897.
Dear Sir,-With reference to the 250 shares, Punjom Mining Co., Limited, sold to you through broker Michael under contract dated 22nd February for delivery to-day, which shares were tendered to you by Mr. J. R. Michael this morning, I beg to give you notice that I shall sell the same in the open market unless you take them up before 3 p.m. to-day against payment of $2,750.
Yours truly,
E. BISCHOFF.
In answer to that letter there was a note in the chit book-"Will reply.-G. A. W." The
1st June, 1897. reply was dated 1st June and was as follows:
My Dear Mr. Bischoff,-Would you kindly give me till next month to settle difference on the Punjom shares and I will pay you interest. I have some money to draw
Yours sincerely, then, when I can pay you if you would oblige.
G. A. WATKINS. E. Bischoff, Esq, Plaintiff would prove that he saw Mr. Wat- kins on the 2nd June and also wrote to him as follows:-
2nd June, 1897.
Dear Sir,-In answer to your letter of yesterday.re- questing me to carry the 250 Punjom shares for you to the end of the month I am unable to accede to your pro-
positon, the same not being accompanied by any security. The 250 shares in the Punjom Mining Co., Limited, February at $11-$2,750—I have sold through broker which you bought from me under contract dated 22nd Michael at $8 per share, 10 cents brokerage $2,162.50. Difference to your debit, $587.50, for which amount please send me your cheque at once.
Yours truly,
E. BISCHOFF.
G. A. Watkins, Esq. The next letter was from the defendant:-
2nd June, 1897. Dear Sir,-In answer to yours of even date re 250 Panjoms, I certainly understood from your memo. of the 1st ultimo that you sold them as you notified me you world by 3 p.m. on that date. I believe the rate for that day was $10 and I am prepared to pay the differ- ence as stated in my note to you yesterday and which amount I asked you to allow to stand over till the end of current month.
Yours truly,
G. A. WATZINE.
E. Bischoff, Esq. The plaintiff afterwards wrote as follows:--
10th June, 1897. Dear Sir,-If you do not settle the difference on sale of 250 Punjoms, $587.50, as per my letter of 2nd June, to-day before 3 p.m., I shall give the matter into the bands of a lawyer.-Yours truly,
G. A. Watkins, Esq. The reply to this was:-
E. BISCHOFF,
10th June, 1897. Dear Sir, Sorry I cannot do as you request. I am perfectly agreeable to pay you the difference as on the- 31st May, which is all I am liable for.
Yours truly,
B. Bischoff, Esq.,
G. A. WATKINA
On the 11th June, the following letter was- written to the defendant by Messrs. Johnson, Stokes, and Master :—
11th June, 1897.
Dear Sir,-We have been instructed by Mr. E. Bischoff, of Messrs. Carlowitz and Co., to apply to you for payment of $587.50, being the amount of damage suffered by him through your failure to take delivery of and to pay for on the 31st ultimo, certain shares of the Punjom Mining Company, Limited, specified in a contract dated 22nd February last and sold for delivery on the 31st May at $11 per share. These shares were, we are instructed, tendered to you on the 31st ult., and you then refused to take delivery and pay for them. On the same date our client gave you notice that unless you took delivery of the shares before 3 p.m. the same day he should sell them on the open market. You replied on the following day re- questing time till next month to settle the difference and offering to pay interest, but our client was unable to se- cede to your request and sold the shares and informed you of the fact and the amount of his loss. Under these cir curnstances he now requires payment, and our instructions
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.