454
Mr. POLLOCK seconded and it was carried. A CONTRACTOR.
Fung Yung, contractor, sent in an application requesting that his name be added to the list of authorised contractors.
The application was granted.
REGARDING FOOD.
Several applications for licences regarding the sale and preparation of food, etc., were discussed and treated on their respective merits.
WATER ANALYSIS.
Mr. Arthur C. Franklin, Government An- alyst, in his report dated Government Laboratory, 31st May." certified that the water from Pokfulam, Tytam, Kowloon and Cheng- shawan services was of excellent quality.
MORTALITY.
The mortality statistics for the week ended 4th June showed the following death rate per 1,000 per annum-British and Foreign civil population, 5.1; Chinese land population, 20.8; Chinese boat population. 6.2; the whole Colony (excluding Army and Navy), 18.1.
LIME-WASHING.
The Lime-washing Return for the fortnight ended 7th inst, showed no prosecutions.
RATS.
The number of infected rats caught is increas. ing in proportion to the total number caught. During the week ended on the 13th inst. 403 rats were caught at Hongkong, including 47 infected rats; and 212 rats were caught at Kowloon, including 15 infected rats.
SUPREME COURT.
Monday, 13th June.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR WILLIAM M.
GOODMAN (CHIEF JUSTICE).
A REPROOF.
Mr. Vania, a Parsee, appeared in Court to make an application for a summons against
certain persons.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
Wednesday, 15th June.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR W. M. GOODMAN (CHIEF JUSTICE).
IN BANKRUPTCY.
Re THE PO FUNG BANK. Upon the application of the Official Receiver, the Court ordered that an issue be tried as to whether Lo Yuk Shang, Kwong King Tong, and Kwong Yik Lam were partners in the Po Fung Bank at the date of the petition in bankruptcy being filed, or at such other date as the Court may determine. This issue came on for trial.
Mr. E. H. Sharp, K.C., instruoted by Mr. John Hastings, solicitor, appeared on behalf of the Official Receiver to show that the men were partners; and Mr. M. W. Slade, barrister, instructed by Mr. H. W. Looker, solicitor, of Messrs. Deacon. Looker and Deacon, appeared for the other side.
[June 18, 1904. You swore the value of the estate to be ! spite of this you, on 26th April, 1904, made a $6,300.00, and alleged the debts to amount to fresh application in Chambers for leave to serve 818,000; but as only debts due to persons | Mr. Bhabha in Bombay with that concurrent writ. Of course leave was refused. Now it resident in the Colony (which amounted to 84,048.43) can be deducted for probate duty. seems you think proper to write letters to me such duty was paid upon the sum of $2,251.57. and asked to see me and take up my judical You had some difficulty about obtaining a time and that of the Registrar with applications surety, but eventually Sorabjee Byramjee which I have no jurisdiction to entertain. Bhabha became your surety, on condition that unless they are brought before me officially in the books and papers connected with the estate due course and time. I have taken the trouble were lodged with Mr. Arjanee to whom, with to thus explain your position to you in order yourself, the power of attorney had been sent: that you may not, in future, plead ignorance I much fear that, unless your friend can you having all proper access to them for the of it. purpose of winding up the estate, an arrange- persuade you to cease this course of conduct, On 22nd March, you will eventually have cause to regret your ment to which you assented. 1900, you duly filed your account of the estate obstinac and of your administration, in your own hand- writing, and you declared to its correctness in the usual form, and one would have supposed the matter was concluded. More than two years elapsed and then, on May 7th 1902, you brought on action against Mr. Arjanee claiming the return of certain books and papers belonging to the estate, or, in the alternative, 85.000, by way of damages. On 9th July, 1902, the widow re- voked her previous power of attorney to you and Arjanee, and gave a fresh one to Burjorjee Nowrojee Fattakia, who filed a petition for administration. Consideration of this petition was adjourned, pending the hearing of the action I have mentioned. That action was heard on 26th June, 1903, by me. You appeared in person and Mr. Slade appeared for the defendant. Mr. Arjanee. It seemed a satisfactory solution that all the books and papers should be sent to the widow in India, so that she could take advice and see whether she was satisfied with what had been done. At the trial. that was the arrangement come to, by consent of both parties. and the following order to which you consented
Mr. SHARP said that the position as they in Court was made: That the books, etc..
open mentioned in the claim and all books, correspon-
understood it was very simple. There were dence, etc.. belonging to the estate of the two partners termed managing parters, while deceased R. C. Vania be handed to the Registrar the other three partners denied partnership. of the Court and be forwarded by him to the They would prove that these three people were High Court in Bombay for the widow of the all partners in this firm, from the commence- deceased, at the expense of the parties-Eachment in 1901 to the time of bankruptcy. They party to pay his own costs.“ The Registrar would prove partnership, in fact, at various informs me that Mr. Arjanee kept faith by intervals of time between the commencement duly bringing into the Registry the books and and the bankruptcy. Time, however, was not an important point, as the three men denied papers in his possession accompanied by a list
in toto the partnership. They did not take up thereof, and that they were forwarded to the
the position that they had once been partners, Registrar of the High Court in Bombay, on 3rd July, 1903, whose acknowledgement reached but had ceased to be so before the time of bank- here on the 19th August. 1903, accompanied by ruptcy. His case was rather a gigantic thing. as they understood that there was a conspiracy a receipt for the same by the widow. however, did not keep faith with the Court, amongst the partners to defeat justice and Months went by without your sending any of defraud the creditors by concealing the names the books and papers in your possession of the partners. When the crisis came the relating to the estate into the Registry, and it managing partners, of course, had nothing.
His LORDSHIP-Are they here? was not until the 4th of May, 1901, that you
Mr. LOOKEE ascertained that the managing brought in a box of papers with a list which contained a lot of comments and statements partners were present. in red ink. Your one-sided comments were not required, but only the documents and a simple list, and accordingly you were requested to remove them and return them with a simple list, a draft form of which the Registrar. Mr. Seth, kindly provided you with. The next day you returned to the Registry and informed the Registrar that you declined to give up the books and papers in question. So the widow. for whose use and benefit the grant of ad. His Lordship, addressing Mr. Vania said.-If ministration was made to you. has never received On 5th December, other litigants acted as you have chosen to act. those books and papers.
Mr. it would be impossible for the administration of 1903, you brought an action against
Arjanee and Mr. Bhabha, claiming $50,000, the justice in this Colony to be properly carried on.
value of landed property situate in Shameen, and You have written letters to me both at my cham. bers and at my private house, with reference to shares in public companies alleged to belong matters you have already litigated, or are litiga-to the estate of the deceased (Vania) and you ting or desire to litigate. In any case your conduct is highly improper, and I must put a stop to it, unless. indeed, your own sense of what is right and decorous leads you to conduct I will point yourself with propriety in future. out what has occurred so that you may under- stand your position. It seems that a Parsee merchant named Ratanjee Cursetjee Vania. whom I understand to have been your uncle, His widow, died here, about 28th June, 1899. who was in India, sent a power of attorney to Mr. Arjanee and yourself to enable you jointly and severally to take out adminstration to her deceased husband's estate for her use and benefit. This Power of Attorney was dated 29th May, 1899. Mr. Arjanee did not use the Power. but you availed yourself of it and in September, 1899, you obtained letters of administration.
His Lordship said he had consented to sit rather earlier that morning in order to give Mr. Vania an opportunity publicly of stating what his application was. He had written letters, his Lordship said. and generally worried him in a very improper manner. Any application which he wished to make must be made in due and proper form.
Mr. Vania-Well, I am charged with con- tempt of Court?
His Lordship-You are charged with nothing at the present moment.
Mr. Vania then went on to relate the parti- culars of the case which had led up to his application. It appeared that about a year ago he had entered into litigation against two Parsees in respect of the estate of a deceased Parsee merchant, and that it had been agreed by consent that each party should send in all papers, letters, etc., relating to the matter. The other side did so, but the applicant failed to do that which had been agreed upon. applied for a summons against these two persons for embezzlement or misguidance of the estate and for $50,000 damages.
He now
You
applied to issue a concurrent writ against Bhabha and asked me for leave to serve it in Bombay. I have no jurisdiction to deal with landed property outside this Colony, and apart from that, the Code Section 42. sub. sec. (2) says
No such leave shall be granted unless it is made sufficiently to appear to the
under
Court that the case is a proper one for service of the jurisdiction." I accor- dingly adjourned your application for further affidavits on that point, and these have never been filed, and on the 31st December, 1903, instructions. your solicitors, Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist, withdrew the proceedings without leave to bring a fresh action. In such case. Section 316, sub. sec. (3) of the Code says the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh action for the same cause of action. In
your
the
Mr. SHARP. Continuine, said that the liabilities of the bank were $120,000, 83,000 of which had They expected in all to been recovered.
$10,000, but nothing from recover managing partners personally. $65,000 they would prove to have been advanced to a shop be- longing to one Kwong Chai Yu without security or a promissory note; or, rather, $51,000 to one shop, and $14,000 to another shop belonging to the father of the first man. While business was brisk the place was full of partners, but at other times none were to be seen. "I think, my Lord, there should be compulsory registration of partners," Counsel added.
The CHIEF JUSTICE said he had been strongly in favour of compulsory registration of partners, and his brother justice and Mr. Justice Wise held the same view. It had been proposed to carry this idea through in the Straits, but it had been found impracticable. It was simply intoler- able that there were no means of ascertaining who were the partners in a Chinese business. If compulsory registration were introduced some would object and others would not. He would call the attention of the Government to the matter. A quarter of the Court's time was taken up determining who were the partners in business.
Mr. SHARP, proceeding, said that in the autumn of 1901 the bank was started, mainly by the Kwong Wing Chung Shop, and the other Kwongs. The three men in question, Lo Yuk Shang, Kwong King Tong, and Kwong Yik Lam, were all partners or employees in the Kwong Wing Shop. When the business was
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.