Page
•
May 13, 1899.]
about 200 whaves and 4,000 Panjoms. He said the latter would probably before the 30th of June be reduced to 3000, as he had sold a thousand and they would probably be taken up before the 30th June I asked him how he
to
are
We
was going to secure us if we did so, and he said he would give us a letter on the Bank for any margin on his account the Bank might have and would also give ns as security some sugar shares then held by Mr. D. E, Sassoon and also second mortgages on certain property. He added that any balance that I might have in account with him could be paid over to us. After that I was discussing the question with him, and I must say I was inclined to help him. Just then Mr. Mody came in and went to his desk. I showed the memo, to Mr. Mody and said I had looked it over and was inclined to assist Mr. Hughes. I told him also the cou. versation I had had with Mr. Hughes--that he was prepard to give us orders on the Bank and to pay any balances they might have over to us, and also that any balances due to Mr. Hughes from us could be paid over to our account and that if we required it we could have second mort-- gages on certain properties. Mr. Mody asked me if I was satisfied, and I said I thought we might help him, and he replied, "Very well, you understand we are not bound to hold the shares." I told Mr. Mody that that was under- stood, but that he had better tell Hughes this himself. Mr. Mody then came along with me my desk and spoke to Mr. Hughes. He told him we were going to help him and added "But you understand perfectly that we are not bound to hold the shares. You can have the shares whenever
and you want them the sooner you take them the botter as
We can not bankers,
do as like with the shares." M. Hughes replied Certainly all I care for is a rise in the market." I then told Mr. Hughes that he had better get all the brokers' accounts made up as soon as possible and to send them in to ns with a statement so that we might see how things were to be carried out. He thanked me very much aud left me.with tears in his eyes. Before this I had had a previous conversation with Mr. Mody about this matter. Mr. Mody was against agreeing to Mr. Hughes's proposal. It was entirely my work. Mr. Mody did not care for Mr. Hughes at all. A day or two before the end of the month a statement was sent in to me by Mr. Hughes of the acccunts of the brokers! I have not got that statement, but we have a copy in the handwriting of our clark, Mr. Silva, who has not been in our employ for 11 years.. The copy produced is the same. I have sought for the original but hare vot been able to find it. I must have sent it back to Mr. Hughes with the brokers' accounts. ( can testify to the copy being a correct one. have found two of the brokers' accounts for June, 1887. Those produced are the same. have made a very careful search, but those are --the only brokers' accounts for that June settle- ment that I have been able to find. Mr. Hughes's actual contracts were about what be had represented them to be. We, however, took up 3.300 Runjoms instead of 3,000 We cleared all is June transactions, pay. ing ont
"
Be
M.r.
very large sum of money --8450,387. With a view to reducing that amount Mr. Hughes sold the 4750 tunjoms to Mr. Mody. I was not present when the tran- saction took place, but I was told about it by Mr. Mody. We had to take up 215 Kowloons for Mr. Hughes, but on the 30th June we got possession of 520 more Kowloons. Hughes gave us an order on the Bank for 520 Kowloons, as 1 had asked him for additional margins, for security to cover the 30th June. This was after we had got the accounts and knew what was exactly to be done. I got these 520 Kowloons from the Bank. I had to pay the Bank $21,444 for them 'i hese made 735 Kowloons. I got the letter produced, dated 30th June, from Mr. Hughes, having reference to the securities given by him: On the 30th June I got the promissary note produced from Mr. Hughes. The body of the note is in the handwriting of my clerk Mr. Silva. I have never received from the Hongkong Bank any payment of margins under the authority of the letter sent for them by Hughes. I received some monies from D. E. Sassoon under the authority of the letter sent by Hughes for them and this was credited to Hughes's account,
|
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
10th May.
The Hon. C. P. Chater, contiuing his evid
393
on
delay
June was made up and sent to Mr. Hughes. There is a press copy of the account in our letter book, which I produce. Both Mr. Hughes and his solicitor have seen this press copy book, and I believe they have got a copy of the
ence, said--I know that an account of the 30th our advice Mr. Hugo 28
account.
At this point there was a little breeze be- tween counsel.
Mr. Pollock said he could not tell whether they had a copy or not.
Mr. Francis (hotly)-It is lying before them. Mr. Master has it.
Mr. Pollock-If my very eloquent and fiery friend will only learn to conduct himself pro- We have not perly we shall get on very well. had an opportunity yet of seeing whether we have a copy or not.
Mr. Francis-It is there in Mr. Master's hands.
Mr. Pollock subsequently remarked that he found they had a copy.
Witness, continuing, said--The account_ap- On the 30th June pears on pages 190 and 191, the words "sold" were written against the Puujom aud Kowloon shares handed to us by Hughes as security. It was written by our late olerk Silva. I have no recollection of having gone over the account with Mr. Hughes, but Mr. Hughes must have gone over it or else he would not have given us the promissory note. In May and June I was in almost daily communication with Mr. Hughes. Mr. Hughes was not so ill then 88 to pre vent him from attending to his business. Since Mr. Huges returned to the colony he has been making enquiries as to these accounts, and all
the accounts, books, etc., have been freely shown to him During these investigatious no ob- jection was taken to the entry showing the sale Mr. Mody. On the contrary Mr. Master told of 4,350 Punjoms and the 730 Kowloons to
me he was thoroughly satisfied. Mr. Hughes never denied the sale of the shares daring the investigation. The result of the settlement appearing on that acconut was that we held no shares belonging to Hughes on the 30th June and that he owed me $30,000 ou his promissory note. The notes produced are the contract'uotes confirming the sale of the shares. They were sigued by W. Kerfoot Hurbes. I and Mody carried through for Hughes his September settlements, We had previously got a state- ment as to the particulars of that settlement. The statement produced is a copy in the hand- writing of Kerfoot Hughes himself. When the 30th September came we received, as we bad done in June. the brokers' accounts.
His Lordship suggested that counsel should see which items in the accounts were admitted, and thus save time.
After some consideration,
Mr. Francis said the other side admitted all the items in the June account except the sale of the 4.350 Punjoms and 735 Kowloons by Mr. Hughes to Mr. Mody,
Mr. Francis subsequently observed that the whole of the September account was admitted so far as figures were concerned, the only dispute being as to how defendants dealt with the shares.
The examination-in-chief of Mr. Chater was continued, and was not concluded when the
} Court adjourned for tiffin.
After tiffin Mr. Chater continued his evidence. He said-The contract note produced is for 2,075 Punjoms, but we were only called to lake up 1,075, which came to Mr. Mody on his own account. I expect Mr. Sassoon had the rest. This had nothing to do with the June settle ment. It was an ordinary share transaction which took place the month before-in May, With reference to the 950 Panjoms which we had to take up by the end of September. of these we ourselves were the sellers of 600, 80 that we had 350 to take up and pay for from outside parties. At that time we had on hand 450 more Punjom ́shares Mr. Hughes.
than we owed
We owes Mr. Hughes 950. The matter as to arranging to let Mr. Hughes have £1,000 on his going home in 1888 was arranged with him by myself and Mr. Mody on his leaving the colony. I never acted for Mr. Hughes in any way. He left his brother here. Mr. Hughes went away on the
|
sold:
4th April, 1888. Soon after he went away there was a rise in some of the shares-Kow- loons, which went up to 150 or 160—and
authorised the sale of by Mr. Jones Hughes, who gave delivery orders on us, which orders we obeyed. I have gone through the account produced and it is correct. It shows that a balance of $45,231 67 was due from Mr. Hughes since he returned to the colony, and I have been present when he and Mr. Master have examined the books and accounts. Mr. Master expressed his satisfaction with the accounts as rendered up to June, 196, and said that if Mr. Hughes in- sisted on fighting he would throw the case up At least six months elapsed after this before I heard that the matter was to be contested.
Mr. Chator was closely questioned as to dif- feront items in the accounts, and his examination was only concluded at half-past four, when the court adjourned.
11th May.
The Hon. C. P. Chater again entered the witness box, and answered a few further ques tions put to him by Mr. Francis. He pointed out the entries in the journal and ledger relat- ing to the purchase from Kerfoot Hughes of the 4.350 Punjoms and the 752 Kowloons, the price given tor the former appearing as $52,200 and for the latter as $95,950.
On being oross-examined by Mr Pollock witness said he gave Mr. Hughes an interest in the properties be purchased at Wanchai, receiving no money whatever from Mr. Hughes, The Wanchai Godowns were re-sold at profit.
At first they were all paid for by him. When they were sold the account was made up, and whatever the profit was he credited Mr. Hughes with one-third or one- fourth, or whatever it was.
Mr. Pollock-Surely you don't mean to say you made Mr. Hughes a present of so much money?
Witness said virtually be did, and added that if there had been a loss Mr. Hughes would have been responsible for his share. Before becoming manager of the Wanchai godowns Mr. Hughes had had experience of the business. He did not remember that in 1881 Mr. Hujbes made him payments in the shape of purchase money in respect of Kowloon property. Mr. Hughes gare in a cheque for $20,0,0 in 1882- to the credit of his account.
A letter dated April 27th, 1887, from Mr. Walter, then manager of the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, to Mr. Hughes, was read. It said a cheque of his for $70.000 had been pre- sented, but as his overdraft was $339,000 he asked him not to increase it further, adding There is of course plenty of margin, but the directors are averse to making enormous ad... vances."
LL
The cross-examination of witness was con- tinned and had not finished when the court ad- journed for tiffin.
After tiffin the cross-examination of Mr. Chater was continued.
Mr. Chater was closely questioned by Mr. Pollock as to the accounts.
Mr. Hormusjee Norowjee Mody said—I am a bill and ballion broker. I have dealt in shares
for 31 years. In 1887 I carried on that business. Mr. Chater was my partner. I remember an arrangement for financing plaintiff in that year; it was first mentioned to me in June. I saw the paper produced. The arrangement made for financing plaintiff was before the date of this doonment (11th June). I don't Mr. Chater first know how long before; mentioned the matter to me, Plaintiff had not approached me, The arrangement was finally made in our office; it was a verbal one. Mr Chater, myself, and plaintiff were present at the time. Mr. Chater told me that plaintiff. was in difficulty and wanted help. I told Mr. Chater I did not like to help that gentleman. Mr. Chater said "I will ask about bis position; let us see." Two or three days after Mr. Cha tor showed me some papers. There were two, which are those produced. Mr. Chater told me he was satisfied and would like to help.” I told him I should not like to as he (plaintiff) would never sell his shares. Chater sinistedi and I reluctantly assented. Plaintif we in
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.