The CHAIRMAN-I think there were about thirty.
Mr. ES. JOSEPH-And was the tender ao- cepted the lowest P
The CHAIRMAN-Go on,
Mr. E. 8. JOSEPH-And I want to know if - Mr. Gordon held the proper certificate when he was sent to superintend the building of these new-boats ?
can
are
The CHAIRMAN-Well, gentlemen, you have put a very great many questions to me, and I think it is very flattering to me if you suppose I carry all those details in my head. I am sure Mr. Brutton does not think anything of the kind, but I will do the beat in the position I am placed to answer you. It seems to me that you are only crying over spilt milk. It may be human nature. The new boats were authorised by you and you authoris- ed the extra capital for the new boats. You have heard what Mr. Gillies said in favour of our building these boats and in favour of our policy, and he is certainly a much better judge of these matters than a lawyer. Mr. Bratton has gone a long way back in ancient history, but I can't follow him there. What has been done has been done, and neither I nor Mr. Brutton
undo
We it. watisfied that what we did was in the best interests of the Company, and I am sure time will prove that we were right As for the marine superintendent-to do away with him would be no economy. As to bis qualifications. I know nothing. That is his business, not mine. He is a good servant of this Company. The fact that the Douglas Company-I don't know whether Mr. Brutton was correct in saying that has no marine superintendent is surely met by the fact that every other marine company in Hongkong has a superintendent. We had to get first-class passenger boats, and we could not get them for the cost of cargo boats. I think I have, at previons meet- ings, admitted that they exceeded their first estimate, and that is not to be wondered st. The cost of shipbuilding is rising all the time. Mr. Veitch's suggestion that the report and accounts should be issued a little sooner is a very unimportant matter. If you cannot understand such accounts in a week it does not seem to me you will understand them in six weeks.
-
Mr. VEITCH-What about people in the outports ?
The CHAIRMAN-You had better leave them to themselves.
Mr. VEITCH-I got mine on Monday last, and from Monday till to-day is not sufficient.
The CHAIRMAN-It is clearly laid down that we must write 5 per cent, off the value of the boats for the time being, and I cannot take the responsibility for the writing-off of that amount. It is merely a paper entry, and it makes absolutely no difference. Why does Mr. Bratton harp on this question of depreciation ?
Mr. VEITCH-I also harp upon it. After some desultory discussion on this point, Mr. VEITCH admitted in answer to a question by the Chairman that it made no difference to him individually.
The CHAIRMAN-Then why make so much fuss about a thing that will make no difference to you? We are doing it properly, as we are bound to do it by the Articles of Association.
Mr. VEITCH-I question it. Mr. S. A. JOSEPH-I also question it very much. I say no.
The CHAIRMAN-The present scheme was fixed by a committee of yourselves,
Mr. VEITCH--I should like to ask what amount was paid as commission. I do not cavil at the amount the general managers get; 5 per cent is not too much, but what I do think, Mr. Chairman, is that you ought to put it in your accounts and show what the working cost is. Many of the shareholders want 10 know.
The CHAIRMAN-Thank you, Mr. Veiteb. That is a suggestion we will take into considera
tion.
In reply to a further remark by Mr. VEITCH, The CHAIRMAN said he would take him in and show him the amount in the books.
Mr. MICHAEL expressed a desire that the Chairman should take in all the shareholders and show them the commission from the books.
* The CHAIRMAN-I decline to take in all the shareholders.
I
THE KONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
Mr. MICHAEL-I have the right; I am a partner in this concern.
The CHAIRMAN-Very good, Mr. Michael, I decline.
Mr. MICHAEL-I am entitled to get it. You have no right to take in Mr. Veitch and none of the others.
The CHAIRMAN-Then we won't take iu Mr. Veitch. Mr. Arnold, are you satisfied ?
Mr. S. A. JO-EPH here interrupted. The CHAIRMAN-Will you sit down ? Mr ARNOLD-I went very carefully into the matter. Nothing has been charged but what the general managers are strictly entitled to charge. The amount I am not at liberty to mention.
Mr BRUTTON-There is no question what- ever that the general managers have charged what they are entitled to. It is only whether the expenses should not be reduced.
as
The CHAIRMAN-That will be considered if you put it forward a suggestion. It will have our consideration,
Mr. VEITCH-I don't object for one moment to the commission
Mr. S. A. JOSEPH-And I don't object to it. The CHAIRMAN-Very good. As it seems none of you are objecting, then we will pat the motion to the meeting.
Mr. ARNOLD made a suggestion that a dividend might be made in the form of scrip.
The CHAIRMAN-We can't do that. Mr ARNOLD-Out of the profits? The CHAIRMAN-We cannot do it out of the profits. I have asked my solicitors, and they say no.
Mr. ARNOLD-Well, you might take fur- ther opinion on that.
The CHAIRMAN-I cannot explain here why it cannot be done. All I can tell you is that I went into this question very carefully with Mr. Deacon, and he came to the conclusion that it would not be good in law.
Mr. ARNOLD said it seemed to him a good suggestion to get $100,000 paid off.
[March 29, 1902.
voting for the motion and half that number against.
The CHAIRMAN declared the motion carried." Mr. E. S. JOSEPH-I hold three proxies. Mr. S. A, JOSEPH-And I hold two. The CHAIRMAN-I have nothing to do with them. I declare the motion carried,
Messrs. N. A. Siebs, H. P, White, D. E, Brown and G, H. Medhurst were re-elected as Consulting Committee, and Messrs. T. Arnold and W. H. Potts as auditors for the ensning year.
1
The proceedings then terminated
SUPREME COURT.
Tuesday, 24th March.
IN APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUE A. G. WISE (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) AND T. SERCOMBE SMITH (ACTING PUISNE JUDGE),
HOWARD AND STEPHENS v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL.
was
This was a notice of motion for special leave to appeal from the decision of Sir John W. Carrington, delivered on 1st December, 1900. The application brought before the Court on 13th instant, on which date their Lordships, after hearing Mr. Morgan Phillips for the appellants, made an adjournment to enable the respondent to show oiuse why the leave asked for should not be granted.
Mr. T. Morgan Phillips, barrister-at-law, appeared for the appellants (instracted by Mr. M. J. D. Stephens, solicitor) and the Attorney- General, Hon. W. Meigh Goodman, K.Č.. appeared on the respondent side (instructed by Mr. F. B. L. Bowley, Crown Solicitor).
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said:-The ques- tion is whether the Full Court will grant "special leave," under section 606 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to appeal against the
Mr. MICHAEL-What rate of interest are you paying on the money on both steamers ?
The CHAIRMAN 6 per cent. to the Com-judgment of Sir John Carrington on the issue....... pany in London.
Mr. MICHAEL-That is good interest. The CHAIRMAN-So much the better for the Company.
Mr. E. S. JOSEPH-I want to know whether you accepted the lowest tender and whether Mr. Gordon has any certificate as an engineer?
The CHAIRNAN-That I cannot tell you. Mr. E. S. JOSEPH-What? You cannot tell whether he is a competent man ?
The CHAIRMAN-He must have a certificate, because he was elected to the Engineers' Institute. Mr. E. S. JOSEPH-I want to know from you whether Mr. Gordon held the necessar certifloste.
7
The CHAIRMAN-Certificate or no certificate, I decline to discuss the matter further, I am quite satisfied that Mr. Gordon was a competent
man.
Mr. E. S. JOSEPH-Did you accept the lowest tender?
The CHAIRMAN—Almost the lowest..
Mr. E S. JOSEPH-What was the lowest ? The CHAIRMAN-I cannot tell you. It is almost a year ago. It would be a few hundred pounds less.
Mr. E. S. JOSEPH-What was the contract price?
Mr BRUTTON Before you answer that ques- tion, Mr. Chairman, you referred to the cost of the steamers up to 31st December. I am not satisfied.
The CHAIRMAN-There are a few thousand dollars to be added to the cost of the s'eamers, perhaps $5,000 or so. We have got to provide for exchange. It may drop to 1/6 yet.
The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to take the vote.
Mr. 8. A. JOSEPH-I rise to a point of order. I object to Mr. Babington voting. Here are the shares that he holds. He was very care- fal to sell out at the highest price and not to apply for any of the new issue.
The CHAIRMAN-Mr. Joseph, if you are making a charge against Mr. Babington, I have nothing to do with that.
Mr. S. A, JOSEPH-He has no right to vote for the motion,
į
The CHAIRMAN-Mr. Joseph, silence! You cannot make these remarks her?.
i
A show of hands was then taken, about 20
of law in this case, and I have now to show cause why such special leave should not be granted on the plaintiff's application. The issue of law was: "Assuming all the facts stated in the petition to be true, and having regard to the provisions of the Praya Reclama- tion Ordinance, 1889, has the Court jurisdiction to enquire into the proceedings connec'ed with the award referred to in the petition and to sel aside the award and declare it null and void P". This issue was argued before the Chief Justice, Sir John Carrington, on 31st October and 1st November, 1900, by Mr. Francis. Q.C., and myself, and written judgment was delivered on 1st December, 1900. in favour of the defendant. Of course that judgment was delivered upon the assumption, for the purposes of the argu- ment, that the facts were as stated in the petition. If the judgment had been for the plaintiffs it would have become necessary to see whether the allegations in the petition were true or false, for there were various, issues of fact which it would then have become necessary to try. These issues appear in the file of papers in this case among the Court records. Now, if the plaintiffs conceived the judgment was wrong, it was open to them, at the time, to have appealed from that judgment to the judgment of the Full Court. Section 18 of the Supreme Court Ordinance, 1873 (No. 12 of 1873, enacts that"There shall be an appeal as of right from every decision of one of the Judges sitting alone in the hearing of any suit or proceeding other than a criminal trial," and that "every appeal from such decision shall be heard before the Full Court." The Ordinance does not, however, expressly specify any limit of time for bringing such appeal. The Ordinance The was passed on 30th September, 1873. Code of
Civil Procedure Ordinance, No. 13 of 1873, had been passed a few days before, viz. 13th September, 1873, and, possibly it had not been noticed that that Ĉode did not make express special provisions as to the time limit, in the case of an appeal from one Judge to the Full Court. It is true that section 68 is headed 'Review of judgment-rehearing—new trial,” and provides as follows:-"The Court may in any case, on such terms as seem just, review any judgment, or order a rehearing or new trial with or without s ́stay of proceedings,"
44
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.