208
Wednesday, 6th March.
IN ORIGINÁL JURIS IO,ION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR JOиun Carring- TON, Q.M.G. (Chief Justice), AND A SPEcial Jury,
March 9, 1901.
Queen's Road Central, but that any expendi“ ture for lime-washing and repairing, &c., beyond this sum should be paid by the plaintiff as ténant?
2. If it was agreed as in (a) and (b), did those agrements constitute one common and con- nected agreement or were they separate and independent agreements ?
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND took the lease to the defendant and got him to | notics to Mr. Prios informing him that he had sign it.
becoms the owner of the property and that Adjourned.
the rauts would in future be collected by his son, Lum Sui Mun, and every question con- nected with the property had to be referred to himself at Macão for his decision. The case for the defendant was shortly that step by step the successive proposals which were made by | Mr. Price with a view to securing either or both 3. If question No.1 is answered in the of these properties were communicated to the affirmative, did Shau Shang have authority defendant in Macao, and the defendant refused to enter into the agreement on behalf of the to let either the godown or No. 12 to anyone | defendant ? for any period exceeding two years, because of 4. If so, has the plaintiff expended money, the other houses and tenements which constitut-upon the faith of the said agreement, with (1) ed his property, the leases of which expired in 1892. the knowledge of the defendant, or (2) the In July, 1900, the defendant sold this property knowledge and consent of the defendant. to Yang Ki Puk, whom he furnished with par- ticulars as to the leases. He informed him that No. 12 was let to Price and Company on a two H. E. Pollock, K.C. (instructed by years' lease at $300 a month. That was the defen- Messrs. Johnson, Stokes & Master), appeared dant's impression at the time he sold the pro- for the plaintiff, and Mr. J. J. Francis, K.C.perty; that it had been practically agreed to by (instructed by Messrs. Mounsey & Brutton), for the defendant.
HERBERT PRICE, TRADING AS H. PRICE AND CO., V. LUM EIN BANG.
ì
The hearing of this case was resumed. The plaintiff prays that the defendant may be order- ed specifically to perform an agreement and to grant a lease to him is accordance with the terms of the said agreement.
The jurors were Messrs. Thos. Arnold (fore man), A. Denison, J. M. Beattie, F. H. A. Fuchs, R. G. Shewan, R. K. Leigh, and A. Shelton Hooper.
|
Mr. Price; and that Mr. Price was willing to accept, and had accepted, a two years' loase, and that nothing remained but to make the lease out. They were quite prepared to admit that Mr. Price had incurred certain expense in doing certain work to the premises.
His Lordship-But you do not admit that the money was expended with the approval and sanotion of the defendant.
Mr. Francis said No, certainly. They denied all knowledge of the expenditure beyond the fact that if he renewed the lease they would pay a certain proportion towards the cost of colour washing the office.
Evidence was then led, Shau Shan going in- to the box and then the defendant. The latter admitted when selling the property to Yang Ki Pak that he had agreed to let plaintiff have a renewal of the lease for two years at a rental of $309 per month free of taxes, but that he, Yang Ki Pak, could make whatever arrange- ment he pleased.
(a) In levelting and cementing the floor of
the said godown and
(b) Upon the colour-washing and painting of the said premises at No. 12, Queen's Road Central, and
STRUKSJ
(c) In altering and enlarging the said pre- mises at No. 12, Queen's Road Central, and
(d) In extending the electric light in the said premies at No. 12, Queen's Road Central P
The jury returned after an absence of about ten minutes, when the Foreman (Mr. T. Arnold) reported that the unanimous reply of the jury to clauses a b and c in question one was
"Yes.' To question two the unanimous reply was Singly and inseparably." To question three, six answered "Yes" and one "No," and to question four, six answered "Yes" and one “No.”
14
Mr Pollock-I may say they are all in favour of the plaintiff.
His Lordship-Then I think the best course will be for Mr Pollock to move for judgment.
Mr. Pollock submitted that after these find- ings it only remained for him to move for judg. ment.
Mr. Francis however, contended that the questions of law should be argued.
It was decided that these should be argued at
In answer to a question by Mr. Pollock, de- fendant said he was not aware that Yang Kian early date. Pak had given plaintiff notice to quit or would grant him a lease at a rental of $700 per month.
Adjourned.
Thursday 7th March,
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR JOHN CABRING- TON, C.M.G. (Chief Justice), AND A SPECIAL JURY.
Mr. Shewan, with the permission of his Lord ship, made a few observations on behalf of himself and colleagues on the jury as to the present system of selecting jurors. He said he felt very strongly on this point, because out of 12 gentlemen who attended in order that a jury might be selected from them, five were sum- moned for the previous jury. They made no protest at the time, because they under-
summoned stood that they were
on the new list, but the Clerk to the Court dis- tinctly stated with regard to Mr. Hough that they were summoned on the old list so that he could not understand how these names had been The hearing of this case was resumed. The given. He understood that 24 names were plaintiff prays that the defendant may be order-submitted to the solicitors, who selected 12 to ed specifically to perform an agreement and to grant a lease to him in accordance with the terms of the said agreement.
Da v
HERBERT PRICE, TRADING AS H. PRICE
AND CO., V. LUM BIN BANG,
Mr. Francia, in opening the case for the de- fendant, said the facts in this case were com- paratively simple, and the issue which the jury had to try was also a comparatively simple one. It seemed to him at the moment that there was only one issue. The evidence of one or both sides might be to a certain extent difficult to follow and in some respects unsatisfactory, but nevertheless, whatever that evidence might hap- pen to be, the jury had to decide the one ques- tion whether there was in fact an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, and, subsidiary to that, whether in point of fact Shan Shan had the defendant's authori- ty for doing what it was alleged he did. The jury should understand clearly that the defendant positively denied that he ever intended or ever dreamt of granting any lease to Mr. Price for the shop No. 12 exceeding two years, and he positively denied that Shau Shan ever said anything to Chun Chi as to an agreement to grant a lease for three years. It was suggested repeatedly, once or twice application was made through Shan Shan to the defendant, as to whe- ther he would not granta lease for three years, and Shan Shan was instructed most positively that no such lease would be granted, and Shau Shan, if he said that a lease for three years would be given, had no authority whatever for saying so. The premises with which they were concerned were bought by the defendant in 1898. The ground floor of No. 12 was at the time let on lease to the plaintiff. The lease, which was for three years, expired on the 30th June, 1903, and the rent expressed on the face of the lease was $200 a month. Mr. Price had explained to them how sometime during the currency of the lesse and after the defendant became the owner of the property certain additions were made to the property and $27 a month added to the rent in consequence. Another portion of the property was occupied by David and Company under a lease-the office and godown at No. 10-and this lease expired on the 28th February, 1900. Of course they could reasonably understand that Mr. Price was anxious to remain in promises in Queen's Road which were so ad. mirably suited to his business. He had a shop in front and an extensive godown behind, and the premises were probably in as good a business part of the city as any premises he could possibly find. It was perfectly natural that Mr. Price should wish to have a lease for five years. No doubt it would have been a convenience to him to have an extra godown within a few yards of his other godown instead of the one in Daddell Street, and of course it was perfectly clear he entered into certain negotiations with a view to obtaining this lease. The owner of this property had been permanently resident in Macao forsome time. His son was compradore for David and Company, and Shau Shan was in the son's employ, acting as shroff for the company. The defendant's positive statement was that no authority was given by him to anyone in Hongkong to manage his property here. The defendant retained the responsible management (c) That the defendant as landlord should of it in his own hand, and the only authority pay the sum of $60 in respect of any lime- he appeared to have given was to give his son washing and painting which should thereafter authority to collect the rent. He sent a written ~ be executed upon the said premises at No. 12,
Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C. (instructed by Messrs. Johnson, Stokes & Master), appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. J. J. Francis, K C. (instructed by Messrs. Mounsey & Brutton), for the defendant.
The jurors were Messrs. Thos. Arnold (fore- man), A. Denison, J. M. Beattie, F. H. A. Fuchs, R. G. Shewan, R. K. Leigh, and A. Shelton Hooper,
Mr. Francis delivered his concluding address to the jury.
Mr. Pollook followed.
His Lordship then summed up, and sub- mitted the following questions to the jury :-
1. Did Shau Shan in the early part of the year 1900 make an agreement on behalf of the defendant with the plaintiff whereby it was agreed
[
(a) That the plaintiff was to have a lease of a godown at No. 10, Queen's Road Central, from the 1st May, 1900, to the 28th February, 1902, at a monthly rental of $50 free of taxes, and
(b) That the plaintiff was to have a lease of the premises at No. 12, Queen's Road Central, then occupied by the plaintiff in his business of H. Price & Co., for a term of three years from the 1st July, 1900, at the monthly rent of $300 free of taxes, and
|
that the 12
appear before the court. This system seemed be liable to grave abuse, to them to because one had only to get a solicitor to object to his name, to prevent his being called upon to serve; so who did not wish to shirk their duty had to do double work. Another thing was that he did not think very great care was taken about obtaining the proper names and addresses. A man might have an office in the city, but be- cause his name was not in the Directory he was never summoned at all. He thought the solicitors should be obliged to make their objections in open Court, and give a reason why the gentlemen they objected to should not serve, Continuing, Mr. Shewan observed that it seemed to the jury that a great many of these cases were simply worked up by Chinese clerks, the Chinese would indulge themselves with the luxury of a lawsuit they should be made to pay heavily for it, and he would humbly sug- geat on behalf of the jury that at least 8100 a day should be given to the jury out of the pockets of these gentlemen who wish to go to law. At home he believed such cases as that would have gone before the grand jury, who would have had the option of throwing them out.
It
His Lordship -Oh, no, that is only in erim. inal cases.
Mr. Shewan begged pardon. He added that he was sure his Lordship was much more able than the jurors to settle these cases, and the jurors would be grateful to his Lordship if he spared them their attendance there.
His Lordship confessed that he was surprised when he saw Mr. Shewan and one or two other
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.