68
a boy who had seen the robbers at the time of the at Shaukiwan when he saw robbery was one of the men who had been in the gang. He ran
the Bad told
complainant, who lived near, that he had seen this man. Com- plainant secured the assistance of a constable and the
and bis man
companion arrested. In their possession was found a large quantity of the property that had been stolen from the complainant's house. A woman who was in the house at the time would identify the other prisoner as one of tho robbers,
were
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
After hearing witnessrs for the prosecntion and defence, the jury retired at 22 to
onsider their verdict, and returned at 6.28 | with an unanimous verdict of guilty agai- st the first prisoner on the first count; they found the second prisoner guilty on the first count by a majority of five to two.
His Lordship sentenced the first prisouer to seven years' imprisonment with hard labour and to receive a flogging pf 24 strukes; the second (who was a boy about 17 yea ́s of age) to two years' imprisonment and a flogging of 24 strokes, The Court adjourned at 6.40 til! to-morrow (Tuesday) t 10 a.m.
IN SUMMARY JurisdictʻON.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR A. G. WISE (BUISNE JUD ̈.}
CLAIM BY WENDT & co.
The case was again calld in which Wendt & Co. merchants, 6 Ice House Street, claimed from the Chop Yik firm the sum of $1,066.54 restricted to $1,000, being damages sustained by the plaintiffs by reason of the non-acceptance by the defendants of 20 cases of Oxford shirtings contracted to be purchased by them from the plaintiffs under contract dated 18th February last. Mr. H. W. Looker of Messrs Deacon, Looker and Deacon, solicitors, appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr M. W. Slade, barrister at-law (instructed by Mr. F. X. d'Almada e Castro, solicitor), was fir the defendants.
His Lordship in delivering judgin ut said this was an action by the plaintiffs against the defendants for failure to tave delivery of some 20 boxes of shirting. The contract was entered into betw on the parties on 18th February, and the goods were to be delivered in two ship- ments, the first "the soonest possible" and the second within a month after delivery of the first.
It had been argud on beh if of the plaintiffs that the only coutract the Court had to consider was that between them and the defendants, and that it must not consider any contract between the plaintiffs and the manu- facturers.. But be considered that even if the term "the soonest possible" was used, when a merchant contracted to deliver certain goods there must be implied conditions that the arrangements he makes at home with the manufacturer must be reasonable arrange- ments БО that the goods must- arrive within reasonable and proper time; *other. wise the contract was useless, as they might arrivo fifty years heuce. On 18th February the plaintiffs wired home to the manufacturer ask- ing for supply of the goods in two months and got a reply to the effect that the goods could only be supplied within four mouths, There had been a dispute between the two experts, Mr. Smyth and Mr. Brooke Emith, as to what four months' arrival meant. Mr. Smyth stated the meaning to be that the goods should arrive four months from the arrival of the patterns and be also gave as a reason for it that until the patterns arrived the manufacturers, even al- though their looms were empty, could not set to work upon the goods. He also stated that in the repeat order in all probability the time would run from the date of the contract because the manufacturer was waiting for further details. Mr. Brooke Smith on the other hand said that in his experience the time ran from the date of the contract and that the manufacturer gave such time as would include if necessary the time occupied by the details going home. It seemed that the manufacturors could put their own construction on that. They refused to do the work in two months and fixed four months. It was clear that they meant four mouths from 18th February, for it was a June shipment that was mentioned. Mr. Smyth thought the time in which the goods were delivered not
f
|
|
unreasonable. Mr. Brooke Smith thought that it was not a reasonable time, although he admitted that there were cases when the mann. facturers' looms were full or a strike on so that they could not do the work. There had been no evidence given one way or another as to how the delay occurred. He was afraid he must assume that there was unnecessary delay on the part of the manufacturer, and although that did Dot altogether affect the merchant, at the same time he thought there was an implied condition that he must make arrangements at home that there must be no unreasonable delay on the part of the mannfac urers. In the absence of evidence he assumed that the manufacturers exceeded their time. With regard to the alleg- ed acceptance of part of the first shipment, his Lordship declined to hold the signature in the chit-book as an acceptance. There had been | some sort of argument hinted at that as the second shipment had come within a month after the first, it should have been accepted in accordance with contract; but if the first ship- ment was bad it appared to him that the second shipment was bad. Judgment for de-
fendants and costs.
The Court adjourned.
Tuesday, 19th January.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGS).
CLAIM BY A PARTNER,
Tong Sun On, trader, 12. Sai Yuen Street, claimed from Wan In Nam, trader, master of the Kwan Wo Tung firin. 5. Aberdeen Village, the sum of $175.67, being monies deposited by the plaintiff with the defendant as to $10 on two separate dep sit receipts of $50 each written in the Chinese language and dated 5th August, 1902, and as to $75.67 on a deposit receipt written in the Chinese langu ge and dated 4th December, 1902, Mr. J. Hays, of Messrs Johnson. Stokes and Master, solicitors, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. E A. Bonner, of Messrs. Dennys and Bowley, solicitors, for the defendant
The case had been up on a previous date, on which occasion an adjournment had been granted on the application of the defendant to permit of some pertuership accounts being translated,
|
|
I
Evidence was taken. That for the plaintiff was to the effect that the parties bad at on-time been partners in a business concern, but that this money had been deposited with the defendant apart from
Any partnership transactions,' Evidence for the defendant went to show that this money was advanced by the plaintiff to complete his share in the partnership account.
I's Lordship gavo judgment for defendant, and costs.
PRO ISORY NOTES-CASE:
Chow Cheong Hing claimed from Chan Hi; tanding as Chan Tung Sang, the sum of $689,50 Mr. E. A. due on three promissory notes. Bonner, of Messrs Dennys & Bowley, solicitors appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. H. K Holmes, solicitor, for the defendant,
Evid nce having been taken,
His lordship gave judg nent for the plaintiff, and cesty.
The Court adjourned.
Wednesday, 20th January.
IN CRIMIN. 1. JURISDICTION.
BEFORE IS HONOUR SIR WILLIAM M. GOODMAN (CHIEF JUSTICE).
DISCHARGED BY PROCLAMATION.
The only case, remaining to be disposed of was that in which Captain Dominic Bazin was charged with criminal libel. The Ion, Attorney-General Sir Henry 8. Berkeley appeared for the Crown (instructed by Mr. F. B. L. Bowley, Crown Solicitor), and Mr. M. W. Slade, barrister-at-law (instructed by Mr. R. Harding, of Messrs. Ewens & Harston, solicitors), appeared for the defence.
The Attorney-General stated that he had no case against the defendant and did not intend to proceed...
[January 25, 1904].
This closed the Sessions; The Court rose at 10,5 a.m.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE),
A CHANGE OF FIRM.
The Chinese American Commercial Com. pany, merchants, 21, Connaught Road, sue the Hang Chung Tai and the Hang Chung Loong firms, watchmakers, 140 Bonham Strand, and Wong King and Tam Tin, par ners therein, for $537.61 in respect of goods sold and delivered. Mr. H. W. Looker of Messrs. Deacon, Looker and Descon, solicitors, appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr. F. X. d'Almada e Ca tro, solicitor, for the Hang Chung Loong and Tam Tin.
Mr. Looker-We say they are the same firm. His Lordship - it is the usual New Year shop shuffle. I suppose.
Mr. Looker went on
F
Mr. d'Almad said he knew nothing about Hang Chung Tai and Wong King.
to explain that the plaintiffs sold some goods in the early part of last year to the Hang Chung Tai who carried on business as watchmakers, and the man then in charge, apparently the master, was Worg King. There was a balance of some $900 remaining in respect of the payment for these goods. but somewhere about November of list your Wong King paid $40) ou account. He often cams to laintiffs' shop and they went to his to press for payinen. This business had been carried on always by two men, one of whom the Chiness referred to as Smith. who appeared to he the manager. On 30th November plaintiffs' shroff went to the Hang Chung Tai shop to ask for payme t of the outstanding accoun". and Smith told Him that the master (presumably Wong King) had gone to Macio. December the shroff went back again and on that occasion was told that the master had not returned. 'On the 7th he again went back aud having asked the same man if the master bad returned the man asked him what he wanted. The shroff told him that he wanted pay- ment of this account. Suith thereupon 8 id that Wong King was not ow master; the shop-style had been altered and the business bad been bought on 2nd December by Tam Tiu. Plaintiffs admitted that the sale had been advertised but alleged that it was purposely put into the smallest of the six Chinese newspapers and the only one which plaintiff did not take in, of which, fact, they said, Wong King had knowledge.
Evidence was taken.
On 2nd
For the defence the case was that the sale of the busines to Tam Tin was a bona-fide sale, that he was not responsible for the vendor's debts and that the sale was duly advertised.
His Lordship gave jud ment for the defendants with costs.
Thursday, 21st January.
IN BANKRUPTCY,
BEFORE 18 HONOUR SIR WILLIAM M. GOODMAN (CHIEF JUSTICE.)
THE BANKRUPTCY LAWS.
2-
Leung T'sat Tai asked for administration of the estate of Fung Yung, alias Fang Chik Sang, deceased, according to the Bankruptcy Law, under Section 81 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance. 1891. Mr. H. K. Holmes solicitor, appeared in support of the petitioning creditor.
His Lordship-You ask to have the estate of the deceased administered according to the Bankruptcy law on the ground that there are nsufficient asse's to meet the debts. On whom have you served the petition?
Mr. Holmes-It is served ou Fung Leung Shin, who has made a declaration that she is the widow of the deceased.
His Lordship-Has she taken out letters of administration P
Mr. Holmes-No.
His Lordship-Hare you served the patition on the Official Admi istrator P
Mr. Holmes-No, your Lordship, it has not Defendant was accordingly discharged by pro- ben served on the Official Administrator.
clamation.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.