486
lots. This is not very likely. What does the community gin and what does it lose by our accepting this plan ?
The PRESIDENT-The community gains an addition of 4 0 square feet around the building which could n t be insisted upon.
The Hon. Mr. BREWIN-I do not think it worth it I do not think the benefit is
worth allowing an extra storey to exclude light and increase surface crowding.
Mr. F. J. BADELEY-The matter goes to the Governar in Council.
The Hon. Mr. BR WIN-I move the Board decline to recommend, and leave the mat- ter for the consideration of the Govern- ment. It is an exceptional thing for houses to exceed four storeys here. They ought to give some reason for the rule to be relaxed. The M.O.H. says that 400 feet will be given to increase in h-ight the building. I think four storeys high enough for any building. I move that we recommend the application be
refused.
Mr E. A. HEWETT - If the Board establish a precedent it may have a far-reaching effect -it might lead to the introduction of five storey buildings calculated to promote over- crowding. So many more storeys, so many more people to the acre!
Dr. F. ( LAKE—It is going to be a European hotel.
Mr. E. A. HaWFT-1t may later be converted into a Chinese hotel.
Mr. FUNG WA CHUN-I second the (Mr. Brewin's) motion
The motion was carried.
A BALCONT.
There was an application for permission to erect a balcony in respect of No. 51, Bonham Strand.
Mr. A. Rumjahn minuted-What about the other requirements? The height of the build- ing should not exceed one and a quarter times the width of the street.
On the motion of the PRESIDENT, seconded by Mr. E. A. HEWETT, the application was granted.
OTHER APPLICATIONS.
Applications respecting the sale and prepara- tion of food were then dealt with
MORTALITY STATISTICS.
corres-
The mortality statistics for the week ended te 10th December, death rate per 1,000 per annum, showed the following figures: -British and foreign civil population, 15 4; ponding week last year 15.5; previous week, 41.1. Chinese community, 17.5; corresponding week last year, 15.2; previous week, 16.2
LIMEWASHING RETURN.
The Limewashing Return for the fortnight
ended the 20th inst. showed that 2981 houses had been attended to in the Central Dist ict, and 1,598 hons 8 in the Western District.
BAT RETURN.
During the week ended the 26th inst. 394 fats were caught at Hongkong, including 94 plague infected rats; and 200, including 3 infected, at Kowloon.
SUPREME COURT..
Tuesday, 27th December.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR, MR T. SERCOMBE SMI H (PUISNË Judge).
THE PO YIK FIRM V. AU CHUN SANG AND OTHERS
This was a claim for $264.79 made by the Po Yk firm, rice merchants, 172, Wing Lok Street, again-t Au (hun Sang, An Yeung Shan and Au Yeung Cheong alig: Au Yung, formerly par "ers in t'e 'ate Tai Lung firm, of No. 856, Des Voeux Road West, on account of goods sold and delivered. The plaintiff also olafmed the costs of the action.
Mr. O D. Tom on appeared for the plaintiff firm; r. Brlow for the third defendant; and Mr. Otto Kong Sing for the first defendant The seo nd defendant was not represented, and was absent from court when the case was called
Mr. Thomson said the only question whether the defendants had "been rea
He would partners in the Tai Lung. firm. prove that they had been, and that the second
•
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
defendant was the managing partner. They had made payments to the plaintiff firm on various occasions, but when a member of the plaintiff firm visited the Tai Lung firm to collect money on the 31st October he found the shop clo ed and only the second defendant on the premises. The second defendant gave full particulars as to who were partners in the Tai Lung firm. The third defendant subsequently, with reference to payment of the money owed by the defendants to the plaintiff firm, said he owned but a small share in the business, and would have to see the others first.
His Honour, after hearing the evidence, found the defendants to be partners in the Tai Lung firm, and he gave judgment for the plaintiff firm with costs.
THE HO FAT KEE U, LI KAN TAI,
The plaintiff in this action claimed $150 plus $10.50, $10 being costs and $0.50 expense on account of a bailiff. Mr. O. D. Thomson appeared on behalf of the plaintiff firm of contractors, doing business at No. 49, Queen's Road East. The defendant, a junk owner whose junk is under arrest, appeared in person. The plaintiff alleged that the money had been lent by him to the defendant.
The case was adjourned till 2.15 p.m. to-day to subpoena a witness.
Wednesday, 28th December.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR Mr. T. SERCOMBE SMITH (PUISNE JUDGE.)
MOOSA E. VIEIRA AND CO. V. THE CHINA EASTERN CONTRACTING CO.
In this case the plaintiff firm, merchants, residing at No 36, Queen's Road Central, claimed from the defendant firm, merchants,
recently of No. 36, Queen's Road Central, $416.90, $400 being rent owing to them and
$16.90 costa of the action.
Mr. Dixon (of Mr. John Hastings' office) appeared for the plaintiff firði, and Mr. E. J. Grist (of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist) for the defendant firm.
'The $400 was stated as being three months'
rent, at $10 per month, payable in advance- for October, November and December, and
one month's rent in lieu of notice.
Moosa Ebrabim, a partner in the plaintiff firm, said he made the letting arrangements with a representative Mr. Probasco of the defendant firm. Mr. Probasco, who said he was a partner in the China Eastern Contracting Co., went into possession in September, and paid the rent for that month in advance The plaintiff firm had received no rent since. defendants left the premises on the 12th Decem- ber. Since that date a distres had been issued on the furniture.
The
Mr. Dixon said the furniture realised some $160, the plaintiffs were now suing only for
the balance due.
Cross-examined, witness said he forgot whether he gave a r ceipt for the reut for September in Mr. Probasco's own name, or in the name of the firm. Mr. Probasco lived on the premises, using one of three rooms as a bedroom and the other two rooms as offices. He did not know when Mr. Probasco's Company was formed; Mr. Probasco said he was going to open a firm.
His Honour said that as the Company was not formed when Mr. Probasco rented the premises, the contract could not be taken to have been made on behalf of the Company. He gave judgment for the defendant firm with
costs.
THE HO FAT KEE v. LI KAN T I.
The plaintiff in this action claimed $150 plus $10.50, $10 being costs and 80.50 expense on account of a bai iff. Mr 0: D. Thomson appear d on behalf of the plaintiff firm of contractors, doing business at No. 49, Queen's Road East The defondant, a junk owner whose junk is under arrest, was represented by Mr. Dixon (of Mr. John asting's office). The pl intiff alleged that the money had been lent by him to the defendant.
The defendant said he had paid the mony to Ho Fat, a partner in the Ho Fat Kee shop.
A witne-s for the defence said he had seen Ho Fat at a quarter to two that afternoon, just outside the Supreme Court, but, instead of
[December 31, 1904
waiting to give evidence, he had gone off in a rick-ha with the plaintiff.
Mr. Dixon applied for a remand so that be might try and bring Ho Fat to give evidence.
The plaintiff had previously s'ated that he was in Mr. Hastings' office between one and two o'clock.
His honour remanded the case till Friday afternoon, remarking-Injustice is being done somewhere. There is something crooked which I want to get at.
Thursday, 29th December.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR MR. T. SERCOMBE SMITH (PUISNE JUDGE.)
DEUTSCH ASIATISCHE BANK v. THE WUI SHING HING BANK, The plaintiffs in this action alleged that they had suffered damage by reason of a breach by the defendants of a contract dated the 4th October, 1904, mide between the plaintiffs and the defendants, whereby he defendants agreed. to purchase from the paintiffs a sterling draft on London, payable on demand for the sum-of £,000 sterling at exchange 1s. 97d and which said contract was to complete their purchase on the 30th November, 1994, and the plaint ffs hall uffered damages to the extent of $785 85 by the defendants breach of their contract. The particulars of the damage were as follows:-
4th Oct by sale of defendants of
£2,000 at exchange 1s. 97d 30th Nov. to cost of £2,000 at
exchange Is. 10 11/16d.
Difference
821,942.86
$21.157.02
8 785.84 The Wai Shing Bank was of No. 102, Wing Lok Street, Hongkong, Bankers. 1 he plaintiffs also sued for costs of the action
Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C., instructed by Mr. H. J. G dgė (of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master) appeared for the plaintiff bank; and Mr. N. Ferrers, instructed by Mr. P. W. Goldring (of Mr G. K. H. Brutten's office), for the defendant bank.
2.8
Mr. Pollock after d-tailing the particulars that he had been given above, said given to understand that the defence which the defendants intended to raise in the action was that the man called Li Yuk Chi, who entered into the contract on behalf of the defendant bank with the plaintiff bank, had no authority from the defendant bank to enter into the contract with the plaintiff bank. Assuming that was so, he thought he would be able to prove otherwise. Regarding that man, he would refer His Honour to certain contracts by him with the plaintiff bank, and, secondly, with the Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China; and he would also be able to call evidence to show that various other transactions had been carried out by him
defendant agent for the
bank with two firms of Chinese merchants. All these transactions were in connection with drafts or bills-of-exchange. The law on the matter was clear-if a bank held out that anybody was their agent they were liable for the acts of that person, though it might be that the person intended to cheat his principal and benefit his own pocket. At the end of November or early in December, he might mention, the defendant bank shut up-and Li Yuk Chi had run away, They stopped business altogether. He was able to call witnesses from the plaintiff bank to show that after a letter had been sent to the. de'endant bank saying "the sterling draft is due to-morrow." a shroff went to the defendant bank, in Wing Lok Street, on the 29th Novem- ber, and had a conversation with a cook-eyed man named Li Shing alias Li Shin, a partner in the defendant bank, as follows:-"As the sterling draft will be due to-morrow, and as you have received our letter, you shou'd chop our chit book "-" I need not chop your chit book": "You must"-"I will take delivery to-morrow.' That showed that on the 29th November there was a clear recognition of this sterling draft for £2,000, and the defendants recognised their liability. He would also be able to show that a certain offer of settlement was made on behalf of the defendant bank in connection with this and some other draits.
C&
•
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.