August 31, 1901.]
failed it would be idle for a layman to venture on an opinion, but I am convinced that over- crowding, the inevitable result of high rents, is largely responsible for the outbreak of bubonic plague in epidemic form during the last few years.
B
It is a matter for congratulation that some banking institutions and leading firms have ! liberally answered the despairing cry of their locally engaged clerks with substantial increment to their salaries. There are some employers, however, who remain callous to the difficulties their assistants are experiencing to make both ends meet, when it is well known that every commodity is not obtainable for less than double its former price. The two chief items which figure most conspicuously in the monthly accounts and absorb the major part of the salary of the head of a family are house rent and cost of food.
Were a indulge in the luxury of a decent dwelling- house, just airy and spacious enough to meet hygienic and sanitary principles, there would be very little left for food.
man
to
Cannot the Government make proper use of its powers in controlling the erection of houses. Cannot the Government appoint a body of technical men to inspect all the houses in the Colony and to recommend the demolition of such as in their opinion are unfit for human habitation? Finally can not the Attorney. General force a bill through the Legislative Council legislating on the rent of houses. This last is the most pertinent need and has the unanimous support of the public. When rents ran high, it occured to me that there was every possibility of the Government being cheated out of its legal tax, as this is based on a rent much lower than what is actually charged. Will it be advantageous for the tenants to agitate and bring this to the notice of the Government? I recommend this scheme to the earnest cou. sideration of H.E. the Governor and the legal luminaries, and assure them that they will find support in the public when the occasion arises.
1
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
Bradley & Co. John Hastings
10)
100
100 100
8100 100
Gibb, Livingston & Co.
1-0
Gilman & Co.
100
Holliday, Wise & Co....
150
Lane, Crawford & Co.
Linstead & Davies
Jno. J. Francis
100
W. G. Hamphreys & Co.
100
John D. Hutchison & Co.
V. A. Caesar Hawkins
G. H. Medhurst
H. E. Pollock
Wilkinson & Grist
100
Harry Wicking & Co
Honkgong Telegraph Co., Lal.
30
A. G. Wise
50
C. } wen
50
H. P. White
D. E. Brown
F. Henderson
A. Babington
A. G. Stokes L. 8. Lewis R.. B. Moorhead E. H. Sharp A. G. Morris Chan A Fook
P. A. Cox
A. Tillett
100
100
50
50
J. S. Harsten
W. H. Wickham
13
K. Monnsey
10
W. H. Gaskell
10
W. Davies
10
G. M. Harston
10
B. R. H. Taylor
10
J. Farrow
J. F. Reece
S. Fulcher
J. S. Ezekiel T. I. Rose
M S. Sassoon
aud Shanghai Bank.
10
817,785
In conclusion, let us hope the official trium- viriate may not influence the independent. thinking of the Governor so that posterity may
Further subscriptions will be gladly received know that the Captain Superintendent of by the undersigued, addressed to the Hongkong Police-excuse the slip of the pen, please--that Sir Henry sailed away from these shores at the expiration of his time, leaving behind him happy memories of his efforts to promote the interest of the Colony and its inhabitants.-- Yours, etc.,
DE MONTE-CARMELLO.
QUEEN VICTORIA MEMORIAL
FUND.
SUBSCRIPTION LIST.
The Hon. Treasurers forward as the follow.
ing list:-
Hongkong & Shanghai Bank
$2,500
Jardine, Matheson & Co.
1.500
Butterfield & Swire
1,500
David Sassoon, Sons & Co.
1,000
E. D. Sassoon
Ro t. Shewan
Chater & Mody
1,000 1,000 1,000
T. Jackson
Hongkong Rope Manufacturing Co.,
Limited
Green Island Cement Co.. Ld
China & Manila S.S. Co., Ldą.
300 500 30
A. H. Rennie
250
Canton Insurance Office
250
Hongkong Fire Insurance Co.
250
China Sugar Refinery
China Fire Insurance Co...
250
Humphreys Estate & Finance Co.
250
A. S. Watson & Co.
220
Victor H. Deacon
250
faldbeck, Macgregor & Co.
John D. Humphreys & Son
Johnson, Stokes & Master
Reiss & Co..
Hongkong Daily Press
200
Douglas Laprak & Co.
200
W. B. Loxley & Co.
150
Palmer & Turner
150
Leigh & Orange..
150
China Provident Loan & Mortgago
Co., Li
100
Yangtare Insurance Association Ld.
100
China Mail ........
100
Hongkong High Level Tramways... 100
النت
C. P. CHATER. T. JACKSON.
Hon. Treas.
SUPREME COURT,
Monday, 26th August
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
191
assertion and warranty of authority by the de- fendants, instituted proceedings in the original jurisdiction of the Court against 'I'. H. Kingsley for the specific performance of the terms of the agreement for the sale of Kowloon Marine Lot No. 39, to the plaintiff, which the defendants, assuming to act as special agents, had entered into on his behalf. Upon the conclusion of the suit-No. 74 of 1900-judgment was given for the defendant, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs of the suit. The plaintiff in the present action claims damages from the defen- dants in respect of their breach of their said warranty of authority. The amount of the damages claimed is $44,325, being the difference in price between the sum of $325,000 originally paid for the property and one of $369,325, representing 197,500 square feet of land at $1-87 per square foot, for which the plaintiff, by a contract dated 7th November, 1900, agreed to sell the said property to the Hongkong Land Investment and Agency Company, Ld. The plaintiff also claims his costs, charges, and expenses of prosecuting the suit No. 74 of 100V, and also the costs of the present action.
In their answer, the defendant stated that they were, at the time of the transaction in question, the special agents of T. H. Kingsley, appointed for the purpose of obtaining offers for tho purchase of Kowloon Marine Lot No. 39. On Saturday, 20th October, 1900, mistakingly assuming that the vendor, T. H. Kingsley. would confirm their action, they gave the plain. tiff, at his request and under the circumstances that had been mentioned, a note in the following words "We are now in a position to accept your offer definitely for the purchase of Kowloon Marine Lot No. 38 for the sum of $325,000 net, and will not enter into] further negotiations with anyone. Terme of payment to be 10 per cent. cash, re. miniuder in six months from date. On the same day the defendants telegraphed to the vendor, T. II. Kingsley, apprising him of their action, and he immediately telegraphed his refusal to confirm it. As coon as possible there- after ou Monday, 22nd October—the defondants told the plaintiff of the vendor's refusal to confirm the sale. Previous to this the defendants had
shown the defendant all the correspondence- letters and telegrams-that had passed between vendor and themselves in connection with the matter, and also informed the plaintiff that the vendor had not actually authorised them to accept the said term of payment. The defen- douts allege that the plaintiff throughout these transactions was aware of their roal position and authority, and deny that they ever mado the assertion attributed to them or gave the warranty alleged. The defendants a so dony their liability for damages iu respect of the matters referred to, and claim that there
BEFORE HIS Hoxour A. G. Wist (ACTING | matters were not the necessary and propor
CHIEF JUSTICE).
consequence of their action. If on 7th Noveni- bor the plaintiff entered into the contract alleged, he did so recklessly and with full LUK LẠI (Hon KINGHORN AND MACDONALD, knowledge of all the circumstances.
This was an action for breach of warranty Mr. Pollock-As your Lordship will hava and authority by Luk Lai Cho, merchant, #2, { gathered from the pleadings, this is an action Bonham Strand, against Messrs Kinghorn and for damages for breach of warranty and au- Macdonald. marine engineers. Des Vaxthority by Luk Lai Cho against. Messrs. King- Rd. Central The Hon. H. E. Pol.ock, K.C. horn and Macdonald, but boforo reading the Acting Att~-nay-General (instructed by Mr. J. pleadings, which I think state the case on both Hastings) peared for the plaintiff. Mr. [šides very clearly. I would ask your Lordship": J. J. Francis, K... and Mr. E. Sharp, barrister- permission to amend the writ of summons and at-law (instruct ủ by Mr J. S. Harston), 'the petition in respect of the first head of represented the defendant firm.
damages. The amount claimed, my Lord, ought to be $40,959.
The petition stated that in the mouth of October, 1900, one T. H. Kingsley, then resident
M
His Lordship –Was it a mistake in calcula-
Mr. Pollock - It arose in this way. We took
His Lordship-What do you want to claim? Mr. Pollock-840,959.
at Shanghai, was the registered owner of | tion? Kowloon Marine Lot No. 39. On the 20th of ị the same month October—defendants, a«um- ing, as special agents, to have the authority of it as being 183,500 square feet at $1-87 per the said T. H. Kingsley for so doing, accepted square foot, when it should have been 195,700 an offer by the plaia iff to purchase Kowloon square feet at 81-87. Marine Lot No. 39 for the sum of $ 125,000 – 10 per cent. to be paid cash down, and the remain. der of the sum in six months. At the time they accepted the plaintiff's offer, the defendants ss- serted and warranted to the plaintiff that they had the authority of the said T. H. Kingsley for The latter subsequently accepting the same. repudiated the authority claimed by the defen- dants, maintained that they had no right to accept the offer of $325,0′s) for the property, and refused to be bound by their acceptance of the offer. The plaintiff, upon the faith of the
|
His Lordship -Have you any objection, Mr. Sharp ?
Mr. Sharp-No, my Lord.
Mr Pollock then proceeded to read the pleadings in the case, after which "counsel égaged in arguments.
Shortly before noon His Lordship adjoined the Court until the next morning to consider a point of law that had been raised.
<
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.