August 18, 1897.[
In an interesting and amusing manner, having a light and graceful pen. There is no straining after effect, no artificiality, but a plain and truthful record by a close observer and skilful writer who, amongst his other qualifications, possesses a keen sense of humour.
THE NEW CHINES LOAN.
THE JAMESON-HOOLEY SYNDICATE. [SPECIAL TELEGRAM TO THE DAILY PRESS."
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
the rate. The assumption was that there was an agreement entered into in the correspondence that took place between the parties. The effect of the correspondence was that the defendant, imagining that there had been some breach of agreement by the plaintiff, refused to accept the freight when it was tendered, insisting that he had a claim against plaintiff for damages as compensation for the breach Cosmopolit, and he also refused to accept of the agreement, to ship solely by the
the freight for the goods until a settlement was arrived at. In a letter the defendant threatened The Jameson Hooley Syndicate have signed to detain the goods in Foochow until his a preliminary contract with the Chinese Gov-claim had been settled. In accordance with ernment for a loan of sixteen million pounds that threat he sent instructions to his agents in sterling.
Foochow not to deliver the goods to the con- signees except on payment of that sum of 8550 or on security for that amount being given. The result was that bills of lading were not given to the plaintiff in Hongkong and he was therefore not in a position to send bills of lading to the consignees in Foochow.
Evidence was then called. The case was not concluded when the Court adjourned.
Shanghai,, 16th August.
In consequence of this contract the Syndicate obtains important railway construction conces
sions.
=
The Syndicate's agent proceeds to Peking lo-day to ratify the contract.
SUPREME COURT,
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION,
BEFORE SIR JOHN CARRINGTON (CHIEF JUSTICE).
CHUNG CHAI SITAN V. KAW HONG TAKE,
16th August.
The case for the plaintiff occupied two days- the 12th and 13th August.
10th August.
145
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE WISE (PUISNE JUDGE.)
1:
KWONG CHEONG V. WONG KAN,
$522.30, money lent and monies paid on account The plaintiffs, a firm of fish dealers of Lowan, near Macao, sued defendant, a fisherman, for
of defendant. Mr. Bowley (of Mr. Dennys's office) appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr. M. W. Slade (instructed by Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist) for defendant.
This case was before the Court on 20th July, when defendant admitted owing $170 and pro- he had paid the balance of plaintiffs' claims, and duced a book chopped by plaintiffs to prove that His Lordship on the occasion gave judgment for the amount admitted only and deprived plaintiffs of their costs. The plaintiff's subse- quently obtained an order for a rehearing on the grounds that they had been taken by surprise by the production by defendant of an account book which was really a forgery and that they could now produce further evidence in rebuttal, The rehearing of the case came on to-day. Cheong Pak, managing partner in the plaintiffs firm, proved that they had lent $400 to defendant in 1894 to assist him-
in building a fishing junk and that de- fendant in return agreed to sell to them all the fish. he caught. They took no acknow- ledgment from defendant, but made entries of the loan in their own account books. In addi tion to this loan plaintiff's made numerons payments on defendant's account and lent further money to him.
The defendant sold
Mr. Robinson, for the defendant, said the no- ture of the contract, the measure of damages, and the amount of damages, independent of the Plaintiff, who is a merchant and commission measure, were in dispute. It became important agent in Bonham Strand, sought to recover
to consider who and what the plaintiff was in from the defendant, who is also a merchant order to ascertain what were his remedies and and commission.agent carrying on business in his damages. The plaintiff's case was that the Praya West, the sum of $1,490.90, being the Cosmopolit was put upon the berth as a general value of goods shipped by the plaintiff on defenship by the defendant and that in the ordinary dant's ship and detained by the defendant, course the plaintiff entered into a contract with several catches of fish to plaintiffs, who credited together with $1,000 damage sustained by the the defendant for the carriage and delivery of him with part of the price against the "small detention of the goods.
certain goods, whereby, by putting the goods
loans account and paid him the balances. on board the steamer on the 18th September After a time defendant ceased to bring fish to last, an implied contract arose that the defend plaintiffs' shop and failed to repay the monies Plaintiffs found him in Hongkong in ant would carry out delivery according to in-lent. structions given in drawing out the bills of lad-July last aud took these proceedings for the ing. The plaintiff contended that there was a balance of the various accounts amounting to breach of contract by delay in delivery, the de- $522.80. lay extending over a period of several weeks, and the plaintiff clained damages for such delay. Mr. Francis said the plaintiff was not claim. ing for delay but for non-delivery.
Mr. J. J. Francis, Q.C. (instructed by. Mr. Looker, of Messrs. Deacon and Hastings's office) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. E. Robinson (instructed by Mr. Bowley, of Mr. Dennys's office) represented the defendant.
A jury had been summoned to try the issue, but when the case was called on Mr. Francis said that he and his learned friend had agreed to dispense with a jury.
His Lordship thought counsel were wise in adopting that course, as it would be very diffi- cult for a jury to follow evidence taken on com- mission unless they read it over themselves most carefully..
Mr. Robinson said he had always been of that opinion and he asked that any expenses incurred in summoning the jury should be paid by his learned friend, because it was all his work.(Laughter.)
Mr. Robinson said that was a point at issue between the parties.
His Lordship took it Mr. Robinson contended the plaintiff ought to have taken delivery.
Mr. Robinson said yes. With regard to some of the goods they were actually delivered and taken delivery of on the 6th October. When the goods arrived they wore tendered on condi- tion in the first instance and unconditionally on Mr. Francis explained the facts of the case
the 9th November. Moreover, no delivery was and said that the action was brought to recover even asked for by the plaintiff before the 9th the value of certain goods shipped by the plain. November, as plaintiff's agent never went to tiff on board the steamer Cosmoplit, which was take delivery, but certain persons called con- either the property of or chartered to the de- signces, who had no bills of lading, did make fendant, who failed to deliver the goods, or the application for delivery. In respect of the mea greater portion of them, to the consignees in sure of damages counsel said that questions of Foochow, and also to recover damages in conse-law arose peculiar to the Foochow market and quence of loss sustained by the non-delivery of the goods. About the 18th September last the plaintiff delivered to the defendant certain mer- chandise to be carried by: the defendant in the steamship Cosmopolit to Foochow and to be delivered there according to the directions of the plaintiff. Defendant did not deliver the goods as directed and they were lost to the plaintiff, who had as a consequence been in- jured in his credit and reputation. Defendant, in answer to the plaintiff's petition, said the goods were delivered on his steamship in pursu- ance of a certain agreement whereby the de- fendant, upon the condition that plaintiff would give him carriage of all the goods, promised to take them at a reduced rate to Fooohow. The plaintiff, however, broke the agreement by des- patching goods by another steamer and therefore the defendant refused to take the goods in res- pect of which the dispute arose at a reduced rate. In December defendant tendered $950 in full satisfaction of the plaintiff's claim and that money was paid into court. It was entirely denied by the plantiff that there was any agreement that the plaintiff should not ship goods for Foochow by any other steamer than the defendant's and that there should therefore be a reduction in
|
For the defence the defendant Wong Kan admitted a loan of $450, but put in a book purporting to be an account chopped by the plaintiffs of all loans and of all fish supplied by $170 only, which he paid into Court. him and showing a balance due from him of
chop on the book produced was the genuine He also called a witness to prove that the chop used by the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs Stated that the book and chop were pure fabrications.
Mr. Slade, summing up the defendant's case, the onus which lay on them of proving defen. contended that plaintiffs had failed to discharge dant's book to be a forgery, and suggested each set as occasion served. He could not that plaintiff had two sets of chops, using disprove the plaintiffs' account books, but he submitted that it was highly improbable that an illiterate man like defendant could have concocted the book he
relied upon, which, if a forgery, was a marvellously skilful made by plaintiffs in chopping defendant's book. one. He asked for judgment on the admissions
ley to reply) said that on the first hearing of the The Judge (without calling upon Mr. Bow- case be considered the plaintiffs had failed to make out their case, but on the evidence now produced he held that the plaintiffs had proved their case and gave judgment for the full amount of the claim with costs.
13th August.
JOHNSON, STOKES, AND MASTER V. GROSSMAN. AND CO.
also peculiar to this case in that there was a difference in the weight given in the invoices and in the weight shipped on board according to the mate's receipts. Counsel contended that the plaintiff was not the owner of the goods but merely the buying and forwarding agent of the owners at Foochow he evidence of each of the Foochow claimants was precise on the point that the goods were ordered definitely and that they were forwarded to them. According to a treatise on mercantile law (which counsel quoted) the right of action would be by the Foochow owners on the ground that the plaintiff was their agent merely for the forwarding of the goods, and counsel submitted that the consignees might have a right of action against the ship, but they had no right of action against the plaintiff, and therefore the plaintiff could not claim damages or loss of market against the defendant, because Mr. H. L. Dennys (Crown Solicitor) appeared plaintiff himself was not liable for the loss to for the plaintiffs and Mr. J. F. Reece repres- the consignees. The plaintiff could not be heldented tho do.vndants. liable to them and he could not make the de- fendant liable. Counsel then quoted various authorities in support of his contentions.
Witnesses for the defence were called and the Court adjourned.
In this action the plaintiffs sought to recover $338.50, being the amount due for work done and money expended as solicitors for the defend- ants.
The case was before the Court on the 15th July and 9th August.
His Lordship delivered the following judg- ment-In this suit the plaintiffs sue for $338.50, being the total amount due on
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.