104
part of the other four Powers are the figures that are whispered among the military.
In view of the inconvenience and expense of the normal government system of telegraphy, the Engineering and Mining Company has had a line constructed, at its own expense, for its own exclusive use between Tientsin, Tongshan, and Ching-wang-tao. We understand that the line is being put up by a Chinese electrical engineer at a cost of some $45,000,
Great depression has overtaken our French allies in the Tientsin garrison by the death of Captain Alla of the 17th Regiment of Marine Infantry. The gallant officer was badly thrown from his horse while in the act of mounting, and quickly succumbed to his injuries. There was an impressive military funeral on Thurs. day. Capt. Alla was 39 years of age.
CORRESPONDENCE.
[We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions expressed by our correspondents.]
DOCTORS FROM INDIA.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE "DAILY PRESS.' Canton, 30th January. SIR,-At the last sanitary meeting the dis- cussion about appointing medical officers in Hongkong was interesting. May I, for the information of the members of the Sanitary Board, bring to their notice the fact that there are hordes of Parsee doctors in Bombay em- ployed in this kind of sanitary work, who have given entire satisfaction to the authorities there and are well qualified in every way for the work that is expected of them in Hongkong and whose services can be requisitioned at the stated pay per mensem, by applying to the Medical College anthorities in Bombay.. This experi-, ment is worth trying, and it is sure to be a distinct success in every way.-Yours, etc.,
ČONVERSANT.
"LA VIE EST VAINE."
TO THE EDITOR OF THE "DAILY PRESS."
Hongkong Club, 3rd February. SIE-In your issue of aturday last is an obituary notice of Mr. A. P. Wickham, taken from Sport and Gossip. The writer ends with some lines from a French poet, whom he mis- quotes. The true reading is :-
La vie est vains- Un рель d'amour, Un
peu de haine,
Et puis-bon jour.
La vie est brêve –
Un d'espoir,
peu Un peu de rêve,
Et puis-bon soir.
The trivial and hollow view of life conveyed by the lines seems scarcely in accordance with the type of character described in the article, The spirit of the verse is somewhat expressed in the epitaph written by Gay for his own tombstone:-
Life is a jest and all things show it. I thought so once and now I know it.
Yours, etc.,
VOIS. [We are glad to give publicity to our oor- respondent's letter, but we doubt whether all will agree with him as to the "trivial and hollow view of life" conveyed by M. Léon do Montenaeken's pathetic lines.-ED., D.P.]
POSTAGE RATES IN CHINA.
Hongkong, 1st February 1902. TO THE EDITOR OF THE "DAILY PRESS.
35
SIB, The paragraph in your issue of to-day re the Chinese Post Office shows that the possibility of retaliation" hinted at in my letter of the 29th January has already begun and the Chinese P.O. will forward in future through the French P.O. mails for abroad; and this will mean a distinct loss in revenue to the Hongkong P.O., who deserve it, although unfor- tunately it will really be our already heavily taxed ratepayers who will have to suffer for the whims of one department.
I further learn from good authority that, so far, the Imperial Chinese P.O. rates remain the asme, i.e. 2 cents per ‡ oz., except in the case of
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
the forced increase to Hongkong, where the rate will be 5 cents per à oz.
Thanking you in anticipation for inserting this.-Yours, etc.
**
PHILATELIST."
SUPREME COURT,
Friday, 31st January.
IN APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
BEFORE THEIR HONOURS A. G. WISE (ACTING CHIEF Justice) aND T. SERCOMBE SMITH (ACTING PUISNE JUDGE).
LUK LAI CHO V. KINGHORN AND MACDONALD.
}
[February 10, 1902.
the defendant Kinghorn wrote a letter on which the whole of these proceedings hinge. Kings- ley then repudiated the authority of the defen- dants to bind him by that letter. On the strength of that letter the plaintiff sued Kings- ley for specific performance. Sir John Carring- ton (C.J.) gave judgment for Kingsley on the ground that the defendants were not authorised to make such a contract. The plaintiff then commenced this suit, against the defendants and claimed damages for breach of warrantry. When the case came on for hearing before me it was admitted on behalf the defendante that on the face of t, the letter of October 20th, 19, was a binding contract, but oral evidence was tendered to show that it was not intended by the parties to be a contract at all, but was only in the nature of a memorandum of terms which were subject to modification by Kingsley in Shanghai. The Court refused to admit the evidence and gave judgment for the plaintiff with costs. The defendants appealed aft- er argument. The full Court ordered that there should be a new trial at which such evidence should be admitted. The defendants then under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ordinance 5 of 1901) applied for and obtained an order that the case should be heard before a Jndge and Special Jury. At the hearing the defendant (Kinghorn) and the plaintiff both gave evidence. The other defendant had been absent from the Colony and had no knowledge of the transaction. The evidence of Kinghorn was of course entirely opposed to that of the plaintiff. Kinghorn stated that when he wrote the letter on Oct. 20th, at first the postscript was not there and was only added at the plaintiff's request, and that both parties had all along thor- oughly understood that there was no binding contract until ratified by Kingsley, and be stated in answer to a question from one of the jury that the words "will not enter into further negotiations with any one were inserted by BEFORE HIS HONOUR A. G. WISE (ACTING him to emphasize that contention, and that the
This was a notice of motion on behalf of the plaintiff that the verdict of the jury in this action given on 11th December. 191, be set aside, and judgment entered for the plaintiff or a new trial to be between the parties on the grounds-(1) that evidence on behalf of defend- ants to vary the written contract in the letter from the defendants to the plaintiff dated 20th October, 1900, was improperly admitted; (2) | that the evidence was against the weight of evidence and perverse.
Mr. M. W. Slade, barrister-at-law (instructed by Mr. J. Hastings), appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. E. H. Sharp, barrister-at-law (instruct ed by Mr. J. S. Harston), for the defendants. The debate was continued in this case in the afternoon, Mr. Sharp concluding the address he had begun on the previous day.
Their Lordships reserved judgment.
Monday, 3rd January.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
CHIEF JUSTICE).
THE FUK KAI v. CHUNG NGOI WAN AND ANOTHER.
This was a claim for $5.353 61 in respect of goods sold and delivered. Mr. T. Morgan Phillips, barrister-at-law, appeared for the plaintiff, instructed by Mr. G. K. Hall Brutton, solicitor. Defendant was not represented.
Mr. Morgan Phillips stated that he had a letter from the second defendant to the effect that owing to the proximity of the Chinese New Year holidays he did not intend to come to the Colony in connection with the case.
His Lordship remarked that he thought this defendant had raised some question of jurisdic- tion. He had better be called formally. His Lordship had looked through the pleadings, and they might be taken as read.
Evidence was called.
Leung Hai Tung, managing partner of the plaintiff firm, said they carried on business at 165, Queen's Road Central as cotton-yaru and piece.goods merchants. He know the defend- ant firm and had dealt with them for about four years. The goods for which they sought payment were bought by a representative of the firm. On 5th February last year they asked for time to pay the amount due. The plaintiffs refused to give time and sent a shroff to collect the money.
The shroff having give corroborative evidence, His Lordship gave judgment for the plaintiff with costs.
The Court adjourned.
Thursday, 6th February.
IN APPELLATE JURISDICTION, BEFORE HIS HONOUR A. G. WISE (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) AND HIS HONOUR T. SERCOMBE SMITH (ACTING PUISNE JUDGE).
LUK LẠI CHO V. KINGHORN AND MACDONALD. His HONOUR A. G. WISE delivered judgment as follows:-
In this case the facts appear in the pleadings, but it may be useful to shortly recapitulate them. About October, 1900, one Kingsley then resident in Shanghai, was the registered owner of K. M. I. 39, and the defendants were agents for the purpose of obtaining offers for the purchase of the said lot. On October 20th,'
4
|
|
"
only question undecided was the question as to the time of payment, whether the whole was to be cash down or 10 per cent. cash and the balance in 6 months. He also explained that he framed his telegram to Kingsley of the same date with the view of pointing out that the question of time was the only one which remained uncer- tain. With reference to his letter of October 22nd be explained that he had taken legal advice and had been informed that he had bound Kingsley as principal and so had written in the way he did. The plaintiff on the other hand denied that he had ever seen any of the telegrams from Kingsley previous to the letter of October 20th, 1900, and that he and Kinghorn as a binding both considered that letter
and that in pursuance of that contract contract he on October 22nd, 1900 (October 20th, 1900 having been a Saturday) tendered the thd per cent. which was refused by Kinghorn. I left (with practically the consent of both parties) the following question to the jury, Did the parties
consider the letter of
October 20th, 1900, (including the postscript) a binding contract at the date or not? The jury, after having heard the conflicting evid- ence of Kinghorn and the plaintiff and having had the telegrams and correspondence read to them, by a majority of 3 to 2, answered the question in the negative and I gave judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff appealed to the Fall Court and asked that the verdict be set aside and judgment entered for the plain. tiff or for a new trial on the grounds, i.—That evidence had been improperly admitted, ii.— That the verdict was against the weight of evidence and perverse. That arguments were confined to the 2nd ground, as the Fall Court had already admitted the evidence and could not
that consider
question On the hearing of the appeal a | again.
number of cases were quoted by Counsel on the question as to whether the Court could upset the verdict of a jury on a question of fact, viz., Solomon v. Bitton Q.B.D. 8, 176; Webster u. Friedebery Q.B.D. 17, 736; Metro- politan Railway Co. v. Wright II App. 152; Jones v. Spencer 77 L.T. 36; Aitken, v. McMeekan, 1895, App. 313; Hampson v. Guy 6 to L.T. N.8. 778; Phillips v. Martin 15 App. 193 and others, including a case Machaelv. Hart not officially reported as far as this Colony is concerned, but to be found in the Times and Standard ́of December 21st, 1901.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.