December 15, 1900.]
all right when delivered to her. She had, how- ever, refused to pay for them.
Mr. Hays said the objection raised to the bill was simply and solely this, that the work was so badly done that the articles of clothing com- plained of were utterly unfit to be worn. They could be produced in court, and ocular demonstration of the bad fit could be given.
During the cross-examination of the witness by Mr. Hays the latter suggested that Mrs. Kennedy should try on one of the articles of clothing complained of a black blouse. This she did, and it was seen to be considerably too small.
Only one witness was called for the plaintiff. Mrs. Kennedy gave evidence on the other side. She said that when she found that the articles of clothing in question did not fit she sent them back to the plaintiff, who told her to have them out down for her daughters, which of course she refused to do. The plaintiff said he
had had so much work to do that he had sent the clothing elsewhere to be made, and that that was the reason the things were not right.
On being cross-examined by Mr. Looker, Mrs. Kennedy said that none of the blouses or bodices would meet. The bodice which she sent to the plaintiff as a pattern fitted her all right.
Mrs. Anita D'Almedo, a dress-maker residing in Elgin Road, Kowloon, said she remembered being sent for by Mrs. Kennedy to look at some blouses, etc., made for her by a Chinese tailor. She saw Mrs. Kennedy try on the black blouse produced. It did not fit her well, being too small and too tight. More cloth would be re- quired to let it out. Mrs. Kennedy could not have worn the blouse. Witness also gave evidence as to the other garments and the cost of the materials used, stating that none of them fitted properly.
In the first case his Lordship gave judgment
for On Kee for the amount claimed, and in the second case for Mrs. Kennedy for $21.75,
Wednesday, 12th December.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR JOHN CARRING. TON, C.M.G. (CHIEF JUSTICE).
CHAN HUNng tong v. POON HUNG, SUED FOR ALL AND ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND
OTHERS THE PARTNERS IN THE YU TSEUNG
SHING FIEM.
This is a claim for $1,970.40, money lent and
interest thereon.
Mr. J. J. Francis, Q.C. (instructed by Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist) appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. H. E. Pollock, Q.C. (instructed by Messrs. Deacon and Hastings), for the defen- dants.
Mr. Pollock said that when the Court rose the previous afternoon he was pointing out that the defendant's account of what took place between him and the plaintiff was absolutely and entirely inconsistent with the account which the plantiff gave of what took place between him and Chan Yu Tong at the time when Chan Yu Tong asked for the money. He submitted that it was quite clear from the inaccurate version which the plaintiff had given of that interview that he did feel very much pressed by the argu- mente that he ought not really to hold Poon Hang liable. He simply gave that inaccurate account of the interview with the defendant for the purpose of attempting to bolster up his claim against the defendant. Then there was the delay which had taken place on the part of the plaintiff in pressing this claim. He did not press the claim with the vigilance which one would expect from a man who thought he had a just and righteous claim. These points were of some importance, because they tended to show how absolutely unreliable any evidence given by the plaintiff was. Then the plaintiff said that Chan Yu Tong's father was manager of the Yu Tseung Shing up to his death in 1895, when Chan Yu Tong became manager. Afterwards, when he asked him when Chang Yu Tong became manager, he said in 1894. That showed the very unreliable nature of the plaintiff's evidence upon the question of man- ager.
After Mr. Pollook had finished his address on behalf of the defendant,
The Chief Justice intimated that he had no de sire to hear Mr. Francis in reply, and he would
|
'CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
accordingly proceed to deliver judgment. He | his return] to the Colony he made to the held that Chan Yu Tong was, according to the plaintiff a promise to pay when he got usual custom among Chinese, a partner in the He had since got work, earning $75 a mo Yu Tseung Shing firm, and that at the time the and was therefore able to pay. Then on the lat plaintiff delivered the three several sums of $500 December last the defendant paid him $50, and he was the manager of the said firm, with an he submitted that that was a payment on account, implied liberty to borrow money from outsiders. and that it amounted to an acknowledgment of He therefore delivered judgment for the plain- the debt and a promise to pay the balance. tiff for the amount claimed and interest thereon The plaintiff gave evidence in corrobora. and costs of suit. He directed that Mr. tion of Mr. Reece's statement. Francis should settle the decree and submit it to Mr. Pollock, and that if necessary the par- ties should come into chambers for the final settlement.
BEFORE
Thursday, 13th December.
IN SUMMARY Jurisdiction.
Evidence was also given by the plaintiff's sister.
At this point- Mr. Grist was called away, and Mr. F. X, d'Almadá é Castro took up the case for the defendant'
Mr. Reece said that the defendant came to see him on Saturday, December 1st, and said he would come and see him on Monday and make an arrangement. He submitted that that HIS HONOUR T. SERCOMBE SMITH was sufficient to take the case out of the Statute
of Limitatioris. (ACTING PUISne Judge).
PROMISSORY NOTE CABES.
Lee Yuk Hin, a cook, residing at 2 and 4, Lee Yuen Street West, sued Wong Leung Chor, a clerk in the office of Mr. C. Ewens, solicitor, for $100.75 due on a promissory note.
The plaintiff said the defendant borrowed the money from him on the 15th September, giving him the promissory note produced.
In answer to Mr. Brutton, the plaintiff said he had nothing to do with the starting of a club in September. Some furniture was obtained from hiar to furnish a club at 52, Praya Central. He did not know who was the first secretary, but Leung Chor started the club. He bought the furniture from a shop in Lyndhurst The defendant took Terrace for $100.75. delivery of the furniture of No. 52. Praya Central. Witness was also present. He made a mistake when he said he got the promissory note on the 15th September. He should have said the 17th September. He was in the club when he lent the money. He did not know when the furniture was taken away from the club. He received a letter from Messrs. Moun- sey and Bratton on the 24th November. He did not know whether the furniture was re- moved the day before. (Mr. Brutton read this letter, which said that in consequence of the furniture having been removed the plaintiff was asked to return the promissory note in question by a certain time proceedings would be taken) No money was actually passed. He received the promissory note for the furniture. He received another letter from Mounsey and Brutton on Wednesday. (This letter was pro- duced, and showed that the special defence of want of consideration would be set up).
His Lordship non-suited the plaintiff with costs. He said he was perfectly satisfied that the promissory note dated the 24th day of the eighth moon, which corresponded with the 17th September, was written and signed without the impressed stamp having been put upon it. The impressed stamp was dated the 18th Septem- ber and the date of the promissory note was the 17th September. A promissory note stamped after it had been executed could not be sued upon.
Guilhermina Cordeiro, a widow, residing at 18, Mosque Street, sued A. M. Silva, of 3, Old Bailey, clerk, for $175, balance dus on a pro- missory note given to him by the defendant in 1893.
Mr. Reece appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Grist for the defendant.
Mr. Grist said he had served his friend with notice of special defence, namely, that the claim was dobarred by the Statute of Limitations. It might shorten matters if he said that that was the only defence he proposed to set up.
Mr. Reece said his Lordship would see from a translation of the note in question that the defendant promised to pay 385 by monthly instalments of $10 on the fourth of each month. There were endorsements on the note which showed that money was paid on account up to May, 1894. In respect of the next five instal- ments judgment was given against him in that court. The defendant was sheent from the Colony from November, 1894, to April 1799, and he suggested under these circumstances the Statute of Limitations did not begin to run until the defendant returned to the Colony. His second point was that on
|
Mr. Reece's clerk said that on the 1st Decem- ber the defendant called at their office and paid $50. On Mr. Reece asking him "What about $175 P" he replied, "I will consider it. Don't issue a writ yet. I will come on Monday about 12 o'clock and see what arrangement I can
make."
By Mr. d'Almada e Castro--The defendant said to Mr. Reece that he had come to pay the judgment debt, and he obtained a receipt for 850 and left immediately afterwards.
Lordship, who spoke to him somewhat sharply The witness was closely questioned by his more than once.
+J
Mr. Reece then entered the witness box and bore out his clerk's testimony.
For the defence Mr. d'Almada e Castro sub- mitted that the evidence was not sufficient to put the case outside the Statute of Limitations, and that the rule as to absence from the Colony did not apply here.
tiff for $165 and costs.
Yesterday judgment was given for the plain-
CRICKET.
HILLS V. PLAINS.
:
In the absence of any markedly level land in drawn at Caine Road: all who lived below that this precipitous Colony, a scientific frontier was sone were called plain people and all who lived above that sone were, for once, constituted hielanders." Kowloon being fairly flat, that de pendency and H.M.S. ships on the water level and some denizens living in or about Queen's Road, supplied the eleven that read a very plain tale to the hills. The Hills were not so strong in batting as the Plains, but were supposed to be more powerful in bowling: the weakness in batting, but not the strength in bowling, was ap- parent at the end of the day's play. Ainslis and Strong opened for the Plains against Salter and Smith and played very finely, being together at tiffin time when the score was 110, after au hour and a half's play. This shows that they dared not take liberties with the bowling and fielding, both of which were good, though un- successful. After the interval, the same two batsmen resumed and were as impregnable as before to 'usual bowling. As a last resource, lobs were tried and at once paid, for 8 wickets fell with the score at 148, 149, and 151 respectively. Strong's innings was the best exhibition, so far as we can remember, that he has given in Hongkong, marred by no real- chance and marked by good defence and clean hitting. Everyone regretted that he had to go when only nine short of his 100. Ainslie also gave a good display, and his bat appeared to have no edges but to be all centre. He played the fairly good bowling with great watchful- ness and care, get'ing many singles between mid on and the wicket. Had the lob bowler gone back to overhand trundling when Wall and Ward (two hard hitters who can also play lobs) were in company, fower runs would have been made and a few more wickets might have fallen. This we may without insinuat ing that the two W's would have succumbed. The rout of the lob bowler was complete when three 6's were spanked off him in one OYOK. About 3.15, when the total was 260 for 5 wickets, the Plains declared, Wall having not out to his credit and Ward 27 not out, men having done some good shoulder-open and fully deserving their runs. At 8.25 the 2
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.