46
Ting recovered judgment in the Supreme Court Summary Jurisdiction, against Pang Yam for the sum of $1,000 and costs.
4. On the 6th Feburary, 1899, in execution of the said judgment against Pang Yam a Pro- hibitory Order addressed to the Defendants was issued and served on the Defendants.
5. The material part of the said Prohibitory Order was in the following words :--
+4
It is ordered that the said Defendant" (i.e. Pang Yam) be and he is hereby prohibited and restrained until the further order of this
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
After hearing the arguments of Counsel their Lordships allowed the appeal and ordered judg ment to be entered for the Plaintiffs for $1,000. the amount claimed, and costs of the appeal and of the Court below.
[July 21, 1900.
After consideration of certain miscellaneous correspondence,
The Chairman said that was all the business before the meeting. It was the smallest agenda he could remember, and showed how the present stirring events in North China were suspending attention from current questions as well as restricting business.
THE CANADIAN PACIFIC BAILWAY CO's MAIL CONTRACT. Read letter from the Government, dated 10th July, stating with regard to the Chamber's let- ter of the 24th April, enclosing resolution in sup- In delivering Judgment the Chief Justice port of the renewal by the Imperial Government stated that, in as much as when the case came
of the Canadian Pacific Railway Co's contract before him in the Summary Jurisdiction he was for carrying the mails from Hongkong via the then sitting for Mr. Justice Wise, he had felt Pacific and Vancouver, if possible with an ac- compelled to follow the ruling of that Judge celerated and fortnightly service, that H.E. the who had, in November 1897, in the case of Tea | Governor had received a reply from the Secre- Lun v. The Hongkong and Kowloon Wharf tary of State for the Colonies to the effect that Court from receiving from you" (ie. The and Godown (ompany, Limited, decided that the question was now under consideration. Humphreys Estate and Finance Company, the provisions of Section 76 (10) of the Code Limited, the present Defendants) " portion of a of Civil Procedure relieved a garnishes, who certain Debt alleged now to be due from you to paid into (ourt money attached by a pro- the said Defendant, viz.. the sum of $1.100,hibitory order. from all further liability in re- being part of the sum of $49.00, being balance spect of that money, whether or not it was after- due by you to the Defendant for the building wards ascertained that such money was rightly of 7 houses on Kowloon Inland Lot No. 540
due to the person to whom it was alleged in the and that you, the said Humphreys Estate and prohibitory order to be due. His Lordship the Finance Company, Limited, be and you are Chief Justice said that he himself could not hereby prohibited and restrained until the hold that view. It appeared to him to be clear further order of this Court from making pay- that it was the duty of a garnishes, on being ment of the said Debt or any part thereof to served with a prohibitory order, to satisfy him- any person whomsoever."
self that the debt which he was thereby pro- hibited from paying was really due from him to the person to whom it was alleged in that order to be due, and if he chose to pay the money into Court, and it turned out that it was not so due, then the payment would have been made at the risk of the garnishee. In this case the creditors of the Defendants were Soo Sum and Pang Yam, but the prohibitory order did not restrain the De- fendant from paying a debt due from them to Soo and Pang jointly, but only from paying a debt alleged to be due from them to Pang Yam alone, and they were not, therefore, in the words of the Code," prohibited from making payment of their debt to their creditor" and consequently payment by them into Court could not have the same effect as payment to the party entitled to receive the debt.“ His Lordship failed to see that any special meaning could be attached to the fact that these words" the party entitled to receive the debt" are used in the latter part of the sub-section instead of the word "creditor'
6.At the date of the said Prohibitory Order the sum of of $4,900, being the balance unpaid of the price stipulated in the aforesaid contract, was due by the Defendants to Soo Sum and Pang Yam jointly for the building of 7 houses on Kowloon Inland Lot No. 540 and such-sum was the property of the said Sing
Kee contractors firm, but there was no sum due in respect of such building to 'Pang Yam severally.
7. On the 7th February, 1899, the architects granted to Soo Sum and Pang Yam a certificate for $2.100, portion of the aforesaid balance of $4,900. whereupon the sum of $2.100, became immediately due and payable by the Defendants to Soo Sum and Pang Yam jointly.
8. On the 7th February, 1899, before payment of any portion of the said sum of $2,100 the Defendants received from Soo Sum's then So- licitors a letter. the material parts of which are as follows:-
We are instructed by Soo Sum, a partner in the Sing Kee contractors firm, who are erecting certain premises for you on Kowloon Inland Lot No. 540, to inform you that he is the only partner in the firm who is entitled to receive any money under the said contract or to give receipts therefore. the other partner Pang Yam having no authorities to bind the firm by his signature.
9. The Defendants refused to pay $1,100 part
of the said sum of $2,100 to Soo Sum or to Pang Yam (or to Soo Sum and Pang Yam jointly) and on the 24th April, 1899, paid $1,000 to Soo Sum and Pang Yam jointly and paid $1,100 into Court under the aforesaid Prohibitory Order.
used in the earlier part of the section, they must both mean one and the person.
The first question in the stated case must therefore. His Lordship held, be answered in the negative and that being so, the Judgment in the Court below must be reversed.
His Lordship the Acting Puisne Judge con- curred.
THE CRISIS IN CHINA.
VICEROY LI HUNG-CHANG IN
HONGKONG.
TWO HOURS' CONFERENCE AT GOVERNMENT HOUSE.
from Canton in the Anping at about ten p.m. H.E. Li Hung-chang arrived in the harbour or the 17th inst., and drew up at the China Merchants Wharf at about six a.m. on the 18th
inst.
His Excellency the Governor (Sir Henry Blake, G.C.M.G.) had sent a pressing invita- tion to the Viceroy to call upon him, but there appears to have been some doubt as to whether he would accept it or not. The last time he passed through Hongkong the Viceroy showed that he was in no particular hurry to go up to Government House, and the fact that on the 18th inst. he not only found his way up the hill but landed at Murray Pier several minutes before the appointed time-nine o'clock-leads one to conclude that some very strong arguments must have been brought to bear upon him.
Lord Suirdale, the Governor's A.D.C., as- sisted the Viceroy, who was arrayed in his yellow jacket, up the wharf steps and excort- ed him to his chair. A salute of 17 guns was fired from H.M.8. Tamar, and a guard of honour of the Royal Welch Fusiliers gave the royal
HONGKONG GENERAL CHAMBER salute. A large crowd of Chinese were assembled
OF COMMERCE.
At the Monthly Meeting of the General Committee of the Hongkong General Chamber of Commerce, held on Monday, 16th July, at 11 10. The Def ndants alleged in their answer
a.m.-Present: Hon. R. M. Gray (Chairman), and tendered evidence at the hearing that in Messrs. H. M. Bevis, A. Haupt, A. M. Mar- their belief there existed no actual partnership shall, R. L. Richardson, C. S. Sharp, N. A between Soo Sum and Pang Yam for the pur-Siebs, Hon. J. Thurburn, ex officio, and R. C. poses of the said contract, but the Court held | Wilcox (Secretary).. that such a partnership did in fact exist.
11. The said payment into Court was made voluntarily and not under pressure from the Court or its officers and Soo Sum protested against and was in no way a consenting party to such payment.
12. The Defendants claim that the said payment of $1,100 into Court under the said Prohibitory Order had the same effect as payment of the said debt of $1100 to the persons entitled to receive the said debt, that is to say Soo Sum and Pang Yam.
The Questions for the opinion of the Court
are: ..
1. Were the Defendants by the said Pro- hibitory Order prohibited from paying the said debt of $1,100 due by them to Soo Sum and Pang Yam jointly?
If by the words of the said Order they were so prohibited,
2. Was the said joint debt attachable in execution of the judgment against Pang Yam? 3. Had the Court jurisdiction to attach the said debt due to the Sing Kee contractors firm not in execution of a judgment against the firm ? 4. Had the said payment of $1,100 into Court ander the said Prohibitory Order the same effect as payment of the said debt of $1,100 to the persons entitled to receive the said debt, that is to say Soo Sum and Pang Yam?
MINUTES.
The Minutes of the last monthly meeting (held 21st June) were read and confirmed.
THE LIVERPOOL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
AND THE CONGRESS OF CHAMBERS. The Secretary reported that a letter in acknowledgment of the receipt of the Liverpool Chamber's circular letter of the 3rd May en- closing copy of the resolutions to be proposed by the representative of that Chamber at the congress held in London in June was despatch- ad on the 25th ult. The letter was received too late to allow of the transmittal of the re- solutions to the representatives of this Chamber.
THE PROJECTED CHANGES IN THE FRENCH CUSTOMS TARIFF.
near the pier with the object of catching a glimpse at their illustrious countryman, but it was notice- able that the leading Chinamen of the colony were absent. Escorted by his retinue, the Viceroy proceeded up Garden Road to Govern- ment House, the route being lined by mem- bers of the Hongkong Regiment, who were in charge of Captain Berger. The band of the regiment were assembled in the grounds and played several selections of music.
On reaching Government House the Viceroy was welcomed in the vestibule by H.E. the Governor and H. E. Major-General Gascoigne, C.M.G., and escorted into the reception room. Here he was introduced to Lieut.-Gen. Sir Arthur Gaselee, Major-General Barrow, Com- modore Powell, and the A.D.C's.
A conference lasting about two hours then took place. We understand that His Excellency the Governor expressed his regret that the Viceroy was leaving Canton, and asked him if he could not see his way to return and resume the duties which he has so well fulfilled there up to now. The Viceroy, however, replied that he had been ordered by the Empress-Dowager to proceed to Peking to endeavour to settle affairs there and could not do other than obey. He added, that he did not apprehend any dis- turbance in Canton, as he had given the fullest The Chairman said a reply had been address-instructions as to the course to be pursued by ed to the Acting Colonial Secretary, acknow- those whom he has left in charge. He said that it was by no means probable that he ledging receipt of the circular despatch from the Colonial Office, covering correspondence would ever return to Canton. relating to projected changes in the French Customs and inviting an expression of opinion thereon, and stating that the Chamber did not think the changes would much affect articles of import.here and they had therefore no sugges- tions to offer with regard to the proposed al. terations in the tariff. The letter was read.
In speaking of the foreign ministers st Peking the Viceroy said that he received an intimation from the Empress-Dowager on the eighth inst., that they were all well and safe with the exception of the German minister.
As to the edict appointing him Viceroy of Chihli, he said it was signed by both the Em- press Dowager and the Emperor.
I
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.