February 11, 1899.]
THE REGULATION OF VEHICLES.
On the motion of the ACTING ATTORNEY! GENERAL, seconded by the COLONIAL TREA. the Bill entitled An Ordinance for the Regulation of Vehicles was read a third time and passed.
ADJOURNMENT.
The Connoil adjourned until Monday 1 ext.
SUPREME COURT
6th February.
In Original. JURISDIOTION.
Buronu Bin John Carrington (CHIEF „JUSTICE) AND A SPECIAL JURY,
!
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT. chosen to take proceedings against Mr. Belilios and to insist upon it in that court that Mr. Belilios was the person who was liable and bound to pay him the balance undoubtedly Mr. Belilios never instructed him in person now due, on the ground that though
or entered into a contract with him personally he authorised the Public Works Department to engage him in his name on his behalf to do the work for him. The answer of Mr. Belilios to that was that he never authorised the Iublic Works Department to employ A Hek in his name.or..on his behalf. Mr. Belilios never entered into such relation- ships with A Hok as would have en- abled him to take proceedings against A Hok and sue bim for damages if the work | had not been properly done. The question was, to whom was A Hok responsible? Was he responsible to the Public Works De. partment for the way in which he did his Work? If the material was bad or the work improperly done could Mr. Belilios sue or could-the Public Works Department? Mr. Belilios's statement was that he did not constitute the Public Works Department his agents to enable them to make a contract between him. self and A Hok. His statement was that he authorised the Public Works Department themselves to do the work, and that therefore there was no binding contract, no legal bọnd of Pollock (Acting Attorney-General), in- / connection, between A Hok and himself, and that was the main point for the jury to try and strut by Mr. H. L. Dennys, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Francis, Q.C. (instructe. to determine. Having recapitulated the facts by Month. Wilkinson and Grist) for the de- of the case, Mr. Francis contended that the cature of the authority given by Mr. Belilios to the Public Works Department was to execute repairs to the extent of $2.000. and alterations alterations, which had been specifically pointed ant—to the »xtent of $4,000.
HOKY. BELILIOS.
The hearing of this case was resumed. Tsau Tuang, who carries on business in the name of ▲ Hok, of 23, D'Aguilar Street, contractor, sought to recover from the Hon. E. R. Belilios the sum of $11,200, hsing the balance money for work done and materials provided by plaintiff on a building belonging to the fondant which is known as Beaconsfield, * In the occupation of Messrs. Butterfield
wire.
fendant,
The following composed the special jury :- --Messrs. R. Murten (foremen), H. M. Mehta, J. 8. Van Buren, Walter Poate, W. R. Loxley W. Hutton Potta, and C. A. 'T'omes.
Mr. Belilios, on his cross-examination being resumed by Mr. Pollock, said Mr. Chatham came -specially to him at his office to speak to him about the repairs and alterations to Beaconsfield, but he did not remember whether he gave him an estimate of the cost or not. When Mr. Chat- -> ham told him he would not be bound by the Away Mr. Danby proposed to carry out the work -witness told him he could have carte blanche. **: Mr. Danby, architect, gave evidence as to the difference in the post of carrying out the repairs and alterations to Beaconsfield according to his plans and those of Mr. Chatham, showing in what particulars the cost of the latter exceeded
the cost of the former.
**What in your opinion has been the cause of the difference in your estimate of $6,500 and the account sent in of $17,200?—I can only sum it up by the word extravagance. Econ- emy seems to have been an unknown quantity, seving the premises were only let on a three yours' lease and considering the nature and character of the buildings themselves.
In reply to Mr. Pollock, witness said that before the repairs and alterations were taken in hand the building was in a fair and substantial state of repair, except that it wanted lime
Mr. Follock, on behalf of plaintiff, submitted that the jury should believe the account given by Mr. Chatham. They might think that in this matter Mr. Chatham had not noted so wisely as a man would have done had, be foreseen that the difficulties which had occurred might have occurred. It was very easy to be wise after the event. He thought Mr. Chatham on the whole gave his evidence very fairly. There was no real ground for impugning hisbona fides. Mr. Danby's evidence, on the other hand, and his general demeanour in the witness box--he did not wish to be unkind to Mr. Danby, but he thought it must have occurred to each one of the jury that Mr. Danby's air in the witness box was the air of a man who was briefed-distinctly briefed on one side. In conclusion be submitted that the only just and fair verdict the jury could come to in this case was that there was a direct chain of agency between A Hok and Mr. Belilios, that the chain of agency had been established to their satisfaction, and that plaintiff, what- ever rights Mr. Belilios might have against Mr. Chatham or against the Government, was entitled to recover from Mr. Belilios the whole of this amount which he claimed in this suit,
His Lordship summed up at some length, touching in the course of his remarks on the
113
9.—Is the defendant estopped by his payment to the plaintiff of $6,500 on a certificate issued by the said. William Chatham from denying
(a.) That the plaintiff was employed in his name on his behalf.
(b.) That, the said William Chatham was entitled to give certificates in favour of the plaintiff so as to bind the defendant, or
(c.) That the authority given to the Public Works Department was exceeded.
3rd February.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE SIR John Carrington (Chier JUSTICE).
ALLEGED BREACH OF COVENANT. Cheung Yau Tau and Cheung Yau Leung and one Lam Shi (of 57, Wyndham Street), exe- cutors and executrix of the late Cheung Kai, sought to obtain an injunction to restrain Choi Chan, of 56, Praya Central, from committing a breach of a certain conenvant with reference to certain buildings.
Mr. Francis, Q.C., instructed by Mr. H. L. Dennys, appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. Slade, instructed by Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist, for defendant.
Mr. Francis said plaintiffs and defendant were owners of two rows of houses extending from Queen's Road towards the Praya and which were back to back. Originally or some time ago there was something in the nature of a four-foot lane or opening or passage between the backs of these two rows of houses, and of A very narrow strip that four-foot lane next to plaintiffs' houses-about 20 inches in width at one end and 10 inches in width at the other belonged to Cheung Kai, plaintiffs testa- for, and on that four feet of land extending over this narrow strip cookhonses had been constructed by defendant or his predecessor. Cheung Kai's bouses, as far as he understood, had no doors opening on to the lane, but had certain windows opening on to it. Under these circum- stances the indenture on which plaintiffs were pro- ceeding was made between the late Cheung Kai and Choi Chan. This indenture, which was dated October 9th, 1890, provided for the sale of the narrow strip of land to defendant, the latter, however, agreeing that no buildings should be placed on the land other than those which then existed, and that the buildings then on the land should not be raised in height; and that if these buildings were pulled down or destroyed in any way those constructed in their place should be similar to them. Their charge against defendant was that he had taken down these buildings and re- erected others at a greater height by two or three feet. In doing so he had blocked up some windows in their buildings which were in exist- ence at the time of the deed. The defence was that between the making of the deed and Cheung Kai's death in January, 1894, one por◄ tion of the covenant was violated, the buildings
kas painting. The so-called estimate | anbusiness-like manner in which certain parties | being pulled down and others of greater height
of
more than an estimate. Tenders were sent in for less than his estimats.
7th February.
Mr. Francis, in summing up for the defence, said this was a quarrel between three individuals A Hok, Mr. Belilios, and the Government spresented by the Public Works Department
• but he asked the jury to bear in mind in con- sidering this case that there were only two of these parties before the court and that the only questions they had to decide in that suit were the questions arising on the face of the pleadings between A Hok and Mr. Belilio, A Hok came there as a contractor and claimed for the balance of money due for work done on the house Beacons feld, which was undoubtedly the property of Mr. Belilios. A Hok claimed $11,20) as the balance due. They were not disputing for a moment that A Hok did work in the house to that extent and that there was a balance due to him by somebody of $11,200 and that there were other
due.
moneys
other people not now before the Court in respect of work on the same house They were not disputing that A lok's work was thoroughly well done and that he was fully entitled to be paid his $11,20, The question was liable to pay 7.4. Hok had
in the case had acted.
His Lordship concluded at a quarter-past six, when the jury retired. They returned at 6:35 and gave their verdict (four to three) as fol- lows:
Issue No. 5.-No as to (a). Yes as to (b). Issue No. 8.-No.
Issue No. 9.-No on each head. This being practically a verdict for the defen- dant, Mr. Francis asked that judgment be en- tered for defendant with costs.
Mr. Pollock asked that under the special circumstances of the case no costs be allowed.
Judgment for defendant with costs. The following are the issues mentioned above-
5. (a) Did the defendant, either expressly or impliedly, authorise the Public Works Depart ment to enter into any contract in his name or on his behalf with the plaintiff or with any other person to execute repairs and alterations to
Beaconsfield ?" or
(b) Did the defendant only authorise the Public Works Department, by themselves, their servants or agents, to execute repairs and alterations to " Beaconsfield?"
8.-Was the said William Chatham the authorised agent of the defendant to issue cer- tificates ?
erected, but that this was done with the consent and knowledge of Cheung Kai.
Evidence having been given for the plaintiffs Mr. Slade applied for the dismissal of the suit on the ground that the evidence was insufficient. His Lordship said he would give his decision on Mr. Slade's application on Monday.
8th February.
His Lordship disallowed Mr. Slade's applica tion.
Mr. Slade, in opening for the defence, said the houses in Tung Man lane belonging to plaintiffs and defendant were practically back to back houses and there was only the width of the table at which he was standing between Of this strip of land the two rows of houses. the only piece which his lordship was concerned with was about ten inches in width. It was in
that the only
concerned, reference to buildings erected on this breadth plaintiffs having no ground of complaint whatsoever if defendant erected buildings 50 feet or 100 feet high on the remainder. He contended, however, that the alterations which had been made were a positive benefit to plaintiffs
oste
Judginent was reserved.
W88
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.