178
money. Really I have not done this. That is all I have got to say.
The Chief Justice, assuming the black cap, said-Ho Su and Wong Fung Chau, you have been found guilty on very clear evidence of the offence with which you are charged. For an offence of this kind there is only one sentence that I can pass. The sentence of the Court upon each of you is that you be taken to the place from whence you came and thence to the place of execution, and then you be there hanged by the neck until you be dead, and that your body be buried in such place as His Excellency the Governor shall order, And may the Lord have mercy on your souls!
The prisoners, who heard their doom with seeming indifference, were then led away.
Monday, 25th February.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR JOHN CARBING- TON, C.M.G. (CHIEF JUSTICE).
LUK LAI CHO V. T. H. KINGSLEY. In this case the plaintiff is a dealer in cotton yarns residing and carrying on business at No. 32, Bonham Strand East, in co-partnership with So Shau Ming and others. The defen- dant is a mechanical engineer and generally resides in Shanghai, and at the time of the writ was temporarily resident in Hongkong. The plaintiff prayed that the defendant might be ordered to specifically perform a contract for the sale by him to the plaintiff of Kowloon Marine Lot No. 39 for the sum of $325,000 on terms agreed upon, and to execute a proper deed of conveyance of the same to the plaintiff upon payment of the purchase money agreed upon.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND entered into by his agents for the sale of the lot in question. The plaintiff had paid into the Bank of China and Japan, Limited, on deposit at interest the said sum of $32,500.
the failure of the negotiations referred to in the In his answer the defendant said that upon petition by reason of the plaintiff not acceding to the defendant's terms for the sale of the pro- perty, the defendant sold it to the China Com- mercial Company, Limited, for the price of $325,000, net, executing an assi2nment thereof to the said company on the 5th November, 1900. The defendant had not authorised Messrs. King- horn & Macdonald to make such a contract as the one in question upon the terms set forth, and if Messrs. Kinghorn & Macdonald had made such a contract they did so by mistake and the defendant was not bound thereby. The defendant had not given Messrs. Kinghorn & Macdonald any other authority than to obtain offers for the purchase of the said property.
Mr. J. J. Francis, K.C. (instructed by Messrs. Deacon & Hastings) appeared for the plain- tiff, and Mr. E. H. Sharp (instructed by Mr. C. Ewens) for the defenee.
[March 2, 1901. Tuesday, 26th February,
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR JOHN CARBING- TON, C.M.G. (CHIEF JUSTICE).
LUK LAI CHO V. T. H. KINGSLEY, yarns residing and carrying on business at No. In this case the plaintiff is a dealer in cotton 32, Bonham Strand East, in co-partnership with So Shau Ming and others. The defendant is a mechanical engineer and generally resides in Shanghai, and at the time of the writ was temporarily resident in Hongkong. The plain- tiff prayed that the defendant might be ordered to specifically perform a contract for the sale by him to the plaintiff of Kowloon Marine Lot No. 39 for the sum of $325,000 on terms agreed upon, and to execute a proper deed of convey ance of the same to the plaintiff upon payment of the purchase mony agreed upon.
Mr. J. J. Francis, K. C. (instructed by Messrs. Deacon & Hastings) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. E. H. Sharp (imstructed by Mr. C. Ewens) for the defence.
Mr. Sharp, continuing his address, submitted that the instructions given by Mr. Kingsley to his agents were as explicit as they well could be, Had he telegraphed at very much greater length or at the length of an ordinary letter on the subject, his telegram would have contained so much reiteration on each of the points raised that the most careless reader would not have
They
mistaken his meaning, but it was not of the nature of a telegram that that which was to be expressed should be expressed with a verbosity finding out their blunder in regard to their usual in a letter or a legal document. After instructions from Shanghai, the agents did not say for a moment that they thought Mr. Kingsley accepted the time proposal. said that they did not notice in their haste and anxiety to conclude the matter that Mr. Kings- telegram silent upon the point that payment ley had refused it. Mr. Kinghorn thought the should be deferred. He had not suggested from the beginning that the telegram gave him authority, but that the only point dealt with was as to the commission and the price. No in accordance with the terms mentioned in Mr. doubt if the agent had given a memorandum Kingsley's telegram there would have been nothing said about it, though technically he would not have been entitled to do so.
The case was not concluded when the Court rose for the day.
Wednesday, 27th February,
performance of a contract dated the 19th Octo- Mr. Francis said this was a claim for specific ber last for the sale of Kowloon Marine Lot No. 39. The writ was issued on the 22nd Octo- ber. The pleadings consisted of petition, answer, replication, and rejoinder, and his Lordship had s ttled issues in Chambers arising out of these pleadings. The plaintiff was a trader resident in Hongkong, and the defendant was manager of a Chinese engineering and mining company whose headquarters were at Tientsin. He was habitually resident in the North-at Tientsin, he believed. He was also the registered owner of Kowloon Marine Lot No. 39. That property was situated at Yaumati. It was not built on in the ordinary sense of the word. At the time of the contract in question the land was in the occupation of the Mitsui Yusen Kaisha and the Hongkong and Canton The plaintiff in his petition said the defen- ants who were storing coal on it, and the
Steamboat Company and certain other ten dant was the registered owner of Kowloon last of these tenures expired on the 31st Marine Lot No. 39. Messrs. Kinghorn and December last. There was no Crown lease in Macdonald, who were consulting engineers and existence. The land was held by an ordinary surveyors carrying on business in Hongkong, agreement of sale--that was were at the time of the happening of the between the purchaser and the Crown that on an agreement events in question the agents in Hongkong complying with certain conditions set out in the of the defendant, and were authorised by him agreement of sale the Crown would grant the to obtain offers for the purchase and sale of the lease and the purchaser would take the rents. lot. The plaintiff on or about the 13th October, Messrs. Leigh & Orange were the pur- through Messrs. Kinghorn & Macdonald, of chasers from the Crown. They assigned fered to purchase the lot from the defendant to Chau Yen Mu, a Chinaman not resident for $325,000, less brokerage to the purchaser, in Hongkong, and Chan Yen Mau assigned to and less an amount paid by the Government the defendant. There were no encumbrances on of the colony to the defendant by way of com- the property. A portion of the property had pensation or refund for a portion of the. lot been since the making of the agreement resumed then lately resumed by the Government. The by the Government, compensation being paid to plaintiff further proposed to pay 10 per cent. the lessee or future lessee. The defendant had of the purchase money on a ceptance of his agents here, Messrs. Kinghorn & Macdonald, offer and the balance in six months. Messrs. who were engineers and who had general instruc- Kinghorn and Macdonald wired the offer to the tions from the defendant to get offers for the defendant, who was then in Shanghai, as follows: sale of this property. Mr. Francis proceeded
LUK LAI CHO V. T..H. KINGSLEY. In this case the plaintiff is a dealer in cotton "We can sell 325 payable 10 per cent. cash; to deal with the negotiations entered into by yarns residing and carrying on business at. No. remainder make the time six months. commission will be allowed ?" To this message tinuing, he said the issues which arose on the
What the plaintiff for the purchase of the land. Con- 32, Bonham Strand East, in co-partnership the defendant, on the 20th Oct., replied as fol- face of the pleadings were, to put them in the is a mechanical engineer and generally resides with So Shou Ming and others. The defendant lows:-"Cannot accept less than 325 net cash." broadest possible form, two. The first question in Shanghai, and at the time of the writ was Upon receipt of this message Messrs. Kinghorn was-Was there any contract for the sale of this temporarily resident in Hongkong. The plain- & Macdonald wrote, on the 20th October, to Kowloon Marine Lot No. 39 between the plaintiff prayed that the defendant might be ordered the plaintiff as follows:-"We are now in a tiff and the defendant?
If there was position to accept your offer definitely for the contract there was an end to the case.
no to specifically perform a contract for the sale purchase of Kowloon Marine lot No. 39 for the there was a contract the further question No. 39, for the sum of $325,000 on terms agreed If by him to the plaintiff of Kowloon Marine Lot sum of $325,000 net and will not enter into arose, there being admittedly a beach of the upon, and to execute a proper deed of convey, further negotiations with anyone. Terms of contract, if there was a contract, what remedy ance of the same to the plaintiff upon payment payment to be 10 per cent. and the remainder would the Court give for a breach of that con- six months from date." On the same day King-tract. To put it shortly, the case of the defen-
of the purchase money agreed upon horn wired the defendant as follows:-"I have sold to-day. I have arranged for payment within the time mentioned." To this message the defendant on the same day replied as follows: "I confirm sale of Yaumati lot only if terms are in accordance with my telegram 20th Octo- ber. Payment in full to myself. Telegraph me whether documents are all in order and pay. ment in full can be made. See Deacon & Hastings," On Monday, the 22nd October, the plaintiff tendered to Kinghorn & Macdonald the sum of $32,500, being 10 per cent. of the pur- chase money, but they refused to receive the same and to sign any formal contract for the purchase and sale of the property, and the defendant personally on his arrival in the colony confirm. ed such refusal and repudiated the contract
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION. BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR JOHN Carring- TON, C.M.G. (CHIEF JUSTICE ).
Mr. J. J. Francis, K.C. (instructed by Messrs. and Mr. E. H. Sharp (instructed by Mr. C. Deacon & Hastings) appeared for the plaintiff, Ewens) for the defence.
dant, as to the question of contract or no con- tract, was that the agent had made a mistake. He (Mr. Francis) contended that if there was a mistake it was entirely the fault of the defen- dant himself in furnishing ambiguous instruc- ties in support of his contentions. He added that Mr. Sharpresumed his reference to the authori. tions to his agents, and that on the broad no contract binding upon them had been entered general principles of the law of equity a prin- into at all. The mistake with regard to which cipal was not allowed to repudiate a contract they were arguing before his Lordship w entered into by his agent on his behalf, al- such a mistake as was to be found in works upon though in fact mistakenly entered into, if the the subject of agency rather than in works upon mistake had originated in ambiguous or in the subject of specific performance. The mis complete instructions on the part of the printake, he alleged, was a mistake of the agent cipal to the agent. Mr. Francis proceeded to argue at some length on this and the other points raised by the issues.
Mr. Sharp followed with his side of the case and had not concluded when the Court rose.
himself as to his power, as to his authority which mistake, if established, would go this far
that there would be no contract at all. Mr. Francis replied, and His Lordship re- served judgment.
1
1Page 11
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.