Page
Mri Slade-But this statement does not ap- ar in your notes. Hi Lordship I shall do what I think right and proper.
His Lordship then thanked the jury for their services and said he would see they were not re quired again until the whole panel had been gone
through.
MIT Pollock entered a nolle prosequi on the charge of conspiracy.
August 9th.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE WISE
(PUISNE JUDGE,)
A RATING APPEAL.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
[August 12, 1899.
the building as one whole tenement. As to the state of the building on the 80th June, when the assessment was made, he should prove that the flag was hoisted on the 27th June, and the assessor naturally took that as an indies. tion that the premises were ready for occupa. tion, and the assessor ascertained that the building had been certified as complying with the Building Ordinance on the 28th June.
Mr. A. Chapman, assessor since 1889, said be made an assessment of the building in ques- tion on the 30th June. He made a dednotion for the top floor, which was not ready. Ho made no allowance for the lifts,
This was an appeal by the Hongkong Land Investment and Agency Co., Limited, against the interim assessment, dated 30th June, 1899, of the offices and dwelling on Marine Lot No. IV. Under this statute machinery was rated, lifts was machinery, but contended that' it
278, in Connaught road (New Praya Central) on the following grounds 1) That the said tene- ment is valued beyond its rateable value, the yalue of certain machinery upon or in the said tenement having been included in the said rate- able value, contrary to the provisions of Ordin ance No. 15 of 1888, entitled the Rating Ordin ance; (2) that the said tenement is valued beyond valuation was made (June 30th, 1899), because on the said date certain portions of the said build-was a great deal of machinery of such a nature ing were unfinished and incapable of beneficial
its ratable value on the date on which such
ooonpation.
Mr. Hostings appeared for the appellants, and Mr. Bowley (Crown Solicitor) for the assessor, MFA. Chapman.
The appellants concluded their case at the previous hearing.
Mr. Hastings said that before his friend opened his case there was one matter he should like to mention to his Lordship which was omitted at the previous sitting, and that was the cost of working the lifts. On their view of the case, namely, that the lifts being machinery were not subject to assessment at all, the cost * of working was not material, but if the other side's view were accepted-that the machinery was ratable-then the cost of working would clearly have to be taken into account, and he would ask his Lordship to ask Mr. Hooper the cost of the electricity for working the two lifts. The cost of the electricity would be $1,200 a year and the cost of three lift attendants $260 a your. There would also be the cost of deprecia. tion-10 p per cent., or $500 a year. That was say that the expenses of the two lifts would amount to $2,360 a year. This might possibly
some in as a factor."
Mr. Shelton Hooper was recalled by his Lord. ship and questioned on these points, corroborat-
Mr. Hastings's statement.
Bowley then opened the case for the He referred to the two questions at -issue, and said that the first question would be the more important and would probably become more important every month, as the umber of buildings in the colouy using lifts had increased. But he submitted that thereal question was not, Is the lift machinery ? No one could possibly deny after the evidence which had been before the court that the electric motor which operated these lifts was machinery of a very complicated
*
but the question was whether there was machinery in this building as was contem- ated by the definition in the Ordinance. As is friend stated in his opening, there were no caces directly on this point, and they had nothing to guide them except the Ordinance that and the ordinary rules of construing sta- tutes. He submitted that the cases his friend: quoted were absolutely off the point, and only went to show that in England heavy stationary machinery was liable to be rated. The section deshing with this matter was apparently adopted from the Imperial statute 6-7 William IV., Chapter 96, section 1. The custom in Hong- song was for the tenant to pay the rates and for the landlord to pay the Crown rent and in- In the Hongkong. Ordinance these words, which were entirely new, were intro Such ratable value shall not include * value of any machinery upon or in the
terement.
.:
Mr. Bowley again briefly addressed the court. Mr. Hastings said Mr. Bowley had admitted that the motor power in connection with the
was not the intention of the Legislature to include this machinery in the Ordinance. He could only submit that the intention of the Legislature must be gathered from its words The word machinery was used. His Lordship could not go behind that sad say what sort of machinery was intended, Although, there might not have been lifts in the colony when the Ordinance was passed there were plenty of lifts elsewhere, and if the Legislature had intended to exempt them from the allowance they would have been specified. In his opening Mr. Bowley said that in other cases the assessor rated as if the machinery was not there, and that was exactly the principle he asked his Lordship to apply in this case.
His Lordship-That is very broad, is it not? Mr. Bowley submitted that it must be read with the view of the objects of the statute, and he would call attention to Ordinance 5 of 1863, That really was the first rating Ordinance in Hongkong. Section 6 of this Ordinance read: "In every valuation to be made under the provisions of this Ordinance the person so appointed to make such valuation as aforesaid shall cause every tenement to be separately valued and such valuation shall be made upon an estimate of the gross annual rent at which such tenement might reasonably be expected to let from year to year.
The value of a tonement so estimated shall not include the In answer to Mr. Hastings, witness said he value of any machinery contained therein." did not rate the value of gas supplied to These last words were practically the same as building, and possibly he should have made a those contained in the Ordinance now in opera-deduction for the electricity used for the lifts tion. No doubt when this Ordinance was drawn and also for the wages of the attendants. up these words were taken from an older statute. In 1863 the system of rating in force in the colony was guided by the statute 6-7 of William and he submitted that the intention of the Legislature in making this exception was to free manufacturing from a tax upon trade ma chinery, and to encourage manufacturing indus. tries as much as possible. In 1863 there were no lifts in the colony. He doubted whether at that time there were any such things as house lifts in existence. At that time no doubt there were in the colony a great number of work. shops, shipbuilding yards, etc., in which there as would have been rated under the English law. That machinery, he submitted, was meant by this Ordinance. In 1888, when the present Ordinance was passed, the position of affairs was practically the same. He believed that in that year there were no lifts in the colony. His Lordship said that this was rather a new At that time there were a great many manu-point, and he should reserve his decision. factories in the colony in which there was rating machinery, and he should prove by the assessor that this was the machinery which he had taken as coming under the meaning of the Ordinance,
LUTGENS, EINSTMANN & CO. V. THE FOO and in rating these places he did not take
KUT CHEONG FIRM. He submitted* that this law about machinery must be con- the machinery into account.
In this case plaintiffs claimed the sum of a reasonable way, and if they $18962 as damages for a breach of contract strued in were to exempt all machinery it would be made between plaintiffs and defendants for the an absolute absurdity. Machinery had been de-sale of 20 cases of clocks. fined as a mechanical contrivance, and if they were to exempt all mechanical contrivances there were a great many things in a house which would have to be exempted such as locks. win- dow sashes, eto. He submitted that a lift was nothing more than an improved means of getting upstairs and that it was just as much part of a bouse as the staircase itself. If they took the staircase ont of a house the value of the house would be considerably reduced, but that was what the appellants wanted to do in this case.
His Lordship-You would not build a house without a staircase, would you?
Mr. Bowley submitted that the lifts were essential parts of the building and in no sense of the word machinery within the meaning of the Ordinance, that was, machinery used for industrial purposes. It was quite apparent uo one could have built this blook so high without providing a lift.
His Lordship-There was no lift in the hotel when I came, and I stayed in the top storey.
Mr. Bowley-It was not five storeys high. His Lordship-It was a good height.
Mr. Bowley, continuing, said the tenants did not pay appellants for the lift but for the premises. They used the lift simply as a means to reach those premises. If they could not get to their rooms they could not occupy them.
His Lordship (smiling)-If they could not get there they could not occupy them.
Mr. Bowley said that with regard to the second point, in assessing the value of these premises the assessor had gone under the latter port of sub-section 5 of section 1, which said
|
August 10th.
Mr. Looker appeared for plaintiffs and Mr. Melbourne, barrister, for defendants.
Mr. Looker said that on the 27th August, 1898, plaintiffs entered into a contract with de- fendants for the sale of 20 cases of clocks at
$2.95 per piece. One term of the contract was that there was to be a reply within 75 days as to whether the order could be delivered, that defendants should be informed of it, and that on this commission being fulfilled defen- dants were to take delivery in four or five months. Plaintiffs communicated with their agents in Germany and received a reply that the order could be fulfilled. Plaintiffs told de- fendants on the 3rd or 4th November that they could fulfill the contract. This was within the 75 days, which expired on the 10th November. The clocks arrived, but defendants refused delivery on the ground that they did not receive notice within the 75 days that the contract could be fulfilled.
Evidence having been called,
Mr. Melbourne said that no notice of the arrival of the goods was given by plaintiff on or before the 10th November, when the time mentioned in the contract expired.
*-
Defendants' manager was called and swore that this was so.
His Lordship gave judgment for defendante with costs.
HOTZ S'JACOB, AND CO. V. THE FOO KUT |CHEONG,
In this case the plaintiff firm sought to recover from defendants' firm $1,000 for breach of con- tract
In the case of buildings let to more than Mr. D'Almada, (Messrs. Wilkinson aud Grist) one occupier, there may be deducted from appeared for plaintiffs and Mr. Melbourne bar- the total annual rent of the whole tenerister, for defendants.
as aforesaid, a um not Mr. Euglebach, manager for plaintiffs' firm, ment, estimated exceeding 20 per cent of the whole as an said that on the 22nd April he contracted to sup allowance for such portions of such buildings ply defendants with 20 cases of cotton thread as may reasonably be expected to be unlet from 10 cases of dark blue and 10 cases of light time to time during the ensuing year, and the blue. These goods arrived in Hongkong on the remainder shall be the rateable value." It had 27th April He informed defendants about been suggested that the assessor should have this one or two days afterwards and asked them assessed the floors separately, but according to to take delivery of the goods. **In the middle of the Ordinance the assessor was bound to assess May Ho Wei-heng of the Foo Kat Cheong
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.