486
Kutsang passed the Zafiro, that the Kutsang by the time she arrived at her anchorage just be yond the Zafiro must have been stationary, Therefore his Lordship ordered judgment for the defendant, with costs.
Hon. H. E. Pollock, K.C. (instructed by Messrs. Dennys and Bowley) represented the plaintiff company, and Mr. E. H. Sharp, bar- rister-at-law (instructed by Messrs. Deacon and Hastings), the defendants. Mr. Basil R. H. Taylor, Assistant Harbour Master, was assessor.
Monday, 9th December.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR A. G. WISE (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE).
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND The plaintiff asked him meantime for an under- taking that he would not entertain any other offers for the property pending the arrival of Mr. Kingsley's reply. He (witness) thought it likely that his principal, had accepted the time payment. He found in several cases in which he had tried to purchase some land that brokers were all willing to accept 5 or 10 per cent. down and the remainder within some specified period.
Other evidence was led.
Tuesday, 19th December.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR A. G. WISE (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE).
LUK LẠI CHO U. KINGHORN AND MACDONALD.
[December 16, 1901.
balance of money, $86, received for use of the plaintiff.
Mr. W M. Slade, barrister, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. E. H. Sharp, barrister, for
the defendant. -
:
Mr. Slade in opening the case said that plaintiff had been in the employment of the defendant firm down to 26th June, 1900, at which date he was discharged. Prior to that on 21st March, 1900. he deposited with the defendant firm a Sm of $1,150 and there was also due to him a sum of $86 in respect of two cases of biscuits supplied to them. That money was deposited with the manager, Man Kai, in whose charge the business of the firm rested. Man Kai was now dead. He received this money as he had received money on pro- vious occasions and gave a receipt for it. The defendan firm denied that the chop used was the chop employed by the firm for depositing or receiving money, and averred that the money was received personally by Man Kai and not Judgment was given in this case, which was
on behalf of the firm. The plaintiff would a new trial upon a special jury for $44,335 for
prove that the money was given to the firm alleged breach of warranty of authority, and and not
The to Man Kai personally. the costs incurred in the original action. In defendant firm stated that the sim deposited that action Luk Lai Cho, 32. Bonham Strand,
was only $300, yet in a previous affidavit they sued T. H. Kingsley, who was then in Shang- declared that no money was deposited at all. hai, for specific performance of an agreement, They further stated that if any sum had been dated 18th October, 190, for the sale by the deposited with the firm such sum would have defendant to the plaintiff of a certa n piece of appeared in their books as having been deposited land sitnate at Kowloon and registered in theby the plaintiff. The sum of $300, which they Land Office as Marine Lot No. 39. The plain said was the only eum deposited had been, they tiff lost the snit, and now claimed the sum stated vorred. repaid, yet in their affidavit which he from Kinghorn & MacDonald, the agents in proposed to put in there was no document dis- the disputed sale. Plaintiff stated that the
closed in the form of a receipt from the plaintiff land was actually sold to him by the defendants, for the sum of $30 referred to, yet if it had and T. H. Kingsley repudiated their action. been repaid they necessarily would have taken He was to pay $325,000 for the property, upon
a receipt from him. the terms that 10 per cent. Le paid cash down and the remainder within six months. T. H. Kingsley repwliated the authority of Kinghorn & MacDonald to bind him by the acceptance of the offer and maintained that he had only authorised the defendants to accept an offer of $325.000, cash down The damages claimed, $44,325, represent the difference between the sum of $325,0 for which the plaintiff had agree to purchase the property, auil the sum of $369,325 representing 197.500 square feet of land at $1.87 per square foot, at which rate the plaintiff by contract had agreed to resell the property to the Hongkong Land Investment & Agency Co., Ld. In addition pla utiff sought suit. The defendants said that they were special to recover the costs incurred in his previous agents of Mr. Kingsley at the time they con- cluded the sale of the land, and mistakenly assumed that the vendor would confirm their action in so doing. The sale trok place ou As soon as possible Saturday, 20th October afterwards. namely on the following Monday, the defendants told plaintiff of the mistake and the refusal of their principal to confirm the sale. They deny the alleged breach of warranty. Hon. H. E. Pollock, K.U., and Mr. M. W Slade, barrister-at-law (instructed by Mr. J. Hastings), appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. E.H. Sharp, barrister-at-law (instructed by Mr. J. S. arston), for the defendants.
LUK LAI CHO . KINGHORN AND MACDONALD, This was a new trial upon a special jury for $44,325 for alleged breach of warranty of authority, and the costs incurred in the original action. In that action Luk Lai Cho, 32, Bonham Strand, sued T. H. Kingsley, who was then in Shanghai, for specific performance of an agreement, dated 18th October, 1900, for the sale by the defendant to the plaintiff of a certain piece of land situate at Kowloon and registered in the Landffice as Marine Lot No. 39. The plaintiff lost the suit, and now claims the sum stated from Kinghorn & MacDonald, the agents in the disputed sale. Plaintiff states that the land was actually sold to him by the defendants, and T. H. Kingsley repudiated their action. He was to pay $325,000 for the property upon the terms that 10 per cent. be paid cash down and the remainder within six months. T. H. Kingsley repudiated the au- thority of Kinghorn & MacDonald to bind and him by the acceptance of the offer maintained that he had only authorised the defendants to accept an offer of $325,000, cash down. The damages claimed, $14,325, represent the difference between of $325,000 for which the plaintiff had agreed to purchase the property, and the sum of $369,325 representing 197,500 square feet of land at $1 87 per square foot, at which rate the plaintiff by contract hal agreed to re-sell the property to the Hongkong Land Investment & Agency Co., Le. In addition plaintiff sought to recover the costs incurred in his previous snit. The defendants say that they were special agents of Mr. Kingsley at the tim they con- cluded the sale of the land, and mistakenly assumed that the vendor would confirm their action in so doing. The sale took place on Saturday, 20th October. As soon as possible afterwards, namely on the following Monday, the defendants told plaintiff of the mistake and of the refusal of their principal to confirm the sale. They deny the alleged breach of warranty.of
Hon. H. E. Pollock, K.U., and Mr. M. W. Slade, barrister-at-law (instructed by ir. J. Hastings), appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. E. H. Sharp, barrister-at-law (instructed by Mr. J. S. Harston) for the defendants.
the sum
The following jury was empanelled-Messrs. V. A. Hawkins, J. C. Smith, J. N. Gosmunu, R. Martin, A. G. Stokes, W. M. Watson and J. W. Bowles.
Mr. Sharp, in opening the case, stated that the plaintiff was introduced to Mr. Kinghorn by the local manager of the Taiping Colliery Com- pany, Ho Li Chan, as a likely purchaser of this property, which Mr. Kingsley was desirous to sell. The negotiations eventuated in the arrangement of a sale at $325,000, 10 per cent. of the money to bo paid cash down and the remainder within six months, He wired to Mr. Kingsley at Shanghai asking if the price, which was to be subject to plaintiff's commission, was satisfactory. Mr. Kingsley replied to the effect that he would accept $325,000 nett cash. This Mr. Kinghorn took to mean that the vendor refused the commission but overlooked the time proposal. The provi- sional arrangement of the sale was made on the distinct understanding that the proposal as to
Mr. Slude having summed up the plaintiff's
case,
Ereidence was then led.
CORRESPONDENCE.
[We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions expressed by our correspondents.]
THE LATE MR. FRANCIS, K.C. -
TO THE EDITOR OF THE "DAILY PRESS.'
Hove, Brighton, 8th November. of the sudden death of Mr. J. J. Francis. I SIR, The last mail brought me the sad news
have read with melancholy interest the tributes which have been paid to his memory in the Coarts of Hongkong. In them I fully concur, and although I feel that those who have so ably spoken on this sad occasion have left little if anything to be further said, yet, as Mr. Francis was about the first person to speak to me at the Conrt on my arrival in 1882, and as I had daily intercourse with him till I left 1895, I would wish through your columns to add the expression of esteem, respect, and regret to the memory of one who through all those years filled such a prominent place in our Court and who has been suddenly cut off at all when he could have looked forward to many years of work and nsefulness. Like all of us, Mr. Francis } ad his Mr. Sharp replied on behalf of the defendant. faults, but ore quality he possessed, for His Lordship summed up and put the follow-which he ought to be remembered and his ing question to the jury-"Did the parties (xample followed, was his faithfulness and devotion to his clients. He was thoroughly conscientious in the conduct of his cases and once he took up a case he bestowed on it all his energy and talent. His zeal for his client may sometimes have betrayed him into hasty or indiscreet action, especially if he thought there was on the part of witnesses any false swearing, but this is a fault which we could conduct of a case. soon forget when we thought of his independent He was also a most useful citizen; as Chairman of the Plague Recogni- tion Commitee, I recall, he had put aside his professional duties and sacrificed his large practice for some months to help the Colony in her hour of trial. He did a great and good work, and I deeply regretted that these deserving services had not met at the
consider that the letter dated 20th October, in-
cluding the postscript, was a binding contract ?”
By a majority of 5 to 2 the jury gave the finding, No."
Hon. H. E. Pollock, K.C., then addressed the Court as to costs.
Mr. Sharp asked for the costs of the old trial.
order was delivered as to the costs in either the Judgment was giv: u for the defendants. No
old or the new trial.
Friday, 13th December.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
deferred payment was to be again submitted to BEFORE HIS HONOUR A. G. WISE (ACTING hands of Government with their reward but Mr. Kingsley for his confirmation.
The first witness was Mr. Kinghorn, who stated that it was by mutual agreement resolved to send a second telegram to Shanghai, asking Mr. Kingsley to state more clearly what were his views with regard to the time proposal.
CHIEF JUSTICE)..
MAK KWAN SHEK V. FOD KAT CHEUNG.
In this case plaintiff claimed $1,236, money deposited with defendant, viz., $1,150 and
I suppose some official jealousy prevented him receiving that mark of Her Majesty's favour which he surely deserved-and which he would | have greatly appreciated. Yours, &c.,
EDW. J. ACKROYD.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.