+
78
The
in this case; the defendant was absent. plaintiff sought to recover eight cases of dates valued at $100, handed by him to the defendant | for sale on commission, or money less commis- | sion for sale of same, or part money less commission and part dates. Mr. Steavenson as asked permission to amend the writ so to make it read "the value of" instead of "the dates." This was
refused, but His "or the Honour allowed him to add the words value." Mr. "Almada e Castro then appeared for the defendant. He said that his client was The case was prepared to return the dates. adjourned so as to give plaintiff time to inspect same.
Tuesday, 81st January.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION. BEFORE HIS HONOUR MR. T. SERCOMBE SMITH (PUISNE JUDGE.)
LEUNG THE V. H. NORONHA.
The plaintiff claimed $484.84 from the defen- dant, on a promissory_nols. Mr. R. Harding (of Messrs. Ewens and Harston) appeared for the plaintiff. Mr. D. V. Steavenson (of Messrs. Deacon, Looker and Deacon) was for the defendant.
Mr. Steavenson-My defence is that the man Leung Yee is not the man to whom the money is due.
The defendant-I am assistant in Noronha and Co. I borrowed $180 from Loung in 1901. I signed a promissory note-that note-in January, 1904. Leung gave me that note, into which all my previous borrowings from him, and interest,
merged. The man I I was borrowed the money from is dead. applied to for money to pay the funeral expenses. I paid some money, though I cannot say the amount :-I think it was £30 or $35.
were
Cross-examined—I never saw the plaintiff till December last. He demanded payment, and I said I did not know him. I did not ask him for further time, The father died shortly after this note was signed. I know the father only by the name of Leung, and did not notice that this promissory note was signed Leung Yee
I see it now.
"
His Honour-The plaintiff comes here and says "I am Leung Yee and I lent the defendant money." The other side says "I received money from one Leung, not the plaintiff." I am thrown back on this document which bears the name of Leung Yee, and there is no evidence that the plaintiff is not the person he represents himself to be. Judgment and coste.
Wednesday, 1st February.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION. BEFORE HIS HONOUR MR. T. SERCOMBE
SMITH (PUISne Judge).
KUHN AND KOMOR V. T. D. ADDIS.
This was a claim for $320, and $30.44 costs. Mr. M. J. D. Stephens appeared for the plain- tiffs; while the defendant, said to be at Calcutta, was not represented. In April 1903 the defen- dant purchased on approval two ivory tusks from the plaintiffs, and had them sent to Calcutta. The tusks were neither paid for nor returned. A writ was served on the defendant in Caloutta, but he did not appear. Judgment from the Supreme Court of Hongkong was now applied for, so that the plaintiffs might take steps to recover their loss.
His Honour gave judgment and costs.
LAU WAN KUT V. TSUI KWAI.
In this action the plaintiff claimed $210, damages, and $17.70 costs, the damages being value of the deficiency of certain goods which the defendant undertook to carry from Chan Tsun to Hongkong. Mr. R. A. Harding appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. R. F. C. Master (of Messrs. Jobuson, Stokes and Master) for the defendant.
Mr. Harding-This action against the junk is to recover damages for non-delivery of a portion of goods entrusted for carriage by a Shing Lee juuk, of which the defendant is the owner. There were a hundred jars of goods, the contents of each jar weighing fifty catties-five thousand catties in all-and the value was $10.50 per picul ($525 altogether). These goods were put
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
on board for safe carriage to Hongkong. The | junk arrived here on the morning of the 12th January. We got notice that the goods had arrived on the following day.
P
His Honour-What were the goods P Mr. Harding-Rice. As Your Lordship knows, the Chinese Government does not want rice to be exported from the country, so the rice in question was put up in jars and styled chit choy (a dark coloured turnip). The de- fendant and plaintiff arranged together.
His Honour-Rice came down under the eloak of turnips for Customs purposes
Mr. Harding-Yes.. When my client was informed that the goods arrived he at once made arrangements to bring them on shore to the Tai Loi Shio shop. Before the goods were removed from the junk the attention of the master was called by the boatman to some of the jurs being light and some heavy. The other replied that this was no business of his. Immediately the goods arrived in the shop the attention of the plaintiff was called to the fact that some were light. The plaintiff thereupon opened the top of one of the jars and found that a lot of rice had been removed. He then went to the junk and asked the master to come on shore and see the
rice weighed. The man declived to do so. The jars were then opened in the presence of witnesses, and it was found that ninety-six out of the hundred jars had holes made through the baskets and jars, evidently to allow the rice to leak out. By weighing the rice the plaintiff found a deficiency of 2,182.12 catties, which, valued at $10.50 per catty, was At that time the plaintiff was $029.19. still owner of the rice, but he was under a con- tract to deliver it at the Tai Loi Shin shop. The plaintiff saw the goods on the junk and Hongkong. He was the
then
10 came
consignee.
Evidence was led. The case was adjourned.
Thursday, 2nd February.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR MR. T. SERCOMBE SMITH (PUISNE JUDGE).
LAU WAN KUT V. TSUI KWAI.
Hearing resumed in this action, in which the plaintiff claimed $210, damages, and $17.70 costs, the damages being value of the deficiency of certain goods which the defendant under- took to carry from Chan Tsun to Hongkong. Mr. R. A. Harding appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. R. F. C. Master (of Messrs Johnson, Stokes and Master) for the defendant,
China.
[February 6, 1905.
know whether or not they were broken, as they were in baskets,
Cross-examined-I generally ask Lo about cargo, and did question him about these hun- dred baskets.
He said they were turnips, but did not show me the manifest then, and I did not ask him for it. The freight is always the
same.
Mr. Harding-When did you first know that the freight was going to be $75!
Witness-When we got to Capanimun and the rice fell out. I said to Lo that he was cheating me. I had to deliver these goods at Hongkong. I did not speak to the man who came to take delivery. Someone came off on the 12th and spoke to my supercargo and I overheard the conversation. The stranger said we could not ask for so much freight, and the other replied, "We have broken the law." On the 10th ult. at Capsuimun I told Lo to write $70 on the envelops.
His Honour-There has been ratification. In adjourning the case His Honour, addres- sing the plaintiff, who is a Canton resident, said; Will you have recovered from the China New Year by Tuesday morning?
The plaintiff nodded his head.
CHAN CHIK HI TONG V. LI KOK U AND TWO OTHERS.
This claim was for 81,000. Mr. Almada e Castro, appearing for the plaintiff, said :—The defendants were partners, and the debt incurred before the partnership was dissolved.
The second and third defendants admitted the debt. In reply to His Honour asking the first defendant if he also admitted it, the man
replied:-I do not know; I have gone into bankruptcy now and have no money.
His Honour-Judgment and costs against The pro- the second and third defendants. ceedings against the first defendant stayed.
BAYCE V. NOMURA,
Mr. D. V. Steavenson (of Messrs. Deacon, Looker and Deacon) again appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Almada e Castro for the defendant. The plaintiff sought to recover eight cases of dates, valued at $100, handed by him to the defendant for sale, or their value. The defendant returned the dates, but the plaintiff said that now they were not in a saleable condition and therefore he would not receive theim.
In the witness-box the plaintiff said: I had eight cases of dates for five months, and then, in June 1904, gave them to the defendant to sell. The dates (sample produced) are now spoiled. Here (produced) are samples of good dates. There are now only seven and a half cases of dates.
Cross-examined-The good dates are of a different brand to the bad ones. I have had the good dates two months. I cannot say that my .shop is damp.
The defendant-In June 1904 the plaintiff The plaintiff having closed his case, witnesses were called for the defence. The junk master gave me eight boxes of dates to send to Japan. I did not examine the contents of the cases. It said:-I did not know the plaintiff's cargo was rice; we are not allowed to carry rice out of was a friendly agreement, I receiving no com- was fixed within which On the 10th ult., when we got as far as mission. No time
There was a
the dates were to be sold. On the 1st September - Capsuimun, some rice leaked out. strong wind which made the junk heel over and I left for Japan, having first seen Mr. Sayce. the cargo shift. Lo Sz, a man in my employ, I said to him I was going to Japan, would not able to sell the dates. receives and delivers general cargo. Rice is try my best to sell them. Sayoe asked for not included in general cargo, and Lo had no security. I was
at Hongkong on the 30th the mo on authority to receive rice. He knew that such I arrived back
If I had known that December, and Sayce saw act was breaking the law. rice was on board before I left Chan Tsun I 4th January. He said he would take legal As the freight proceedings The dates arrived back at Hong- should have refused to carry it. for turnips is six candareens per picul, the kong on the 17th December, before me. freight for five thousand catties would be about a case must have been used as samples, and Tls. 3. During the bad weather at Capsaimun therefore only seven and a half cases arrived two jars fell overboard, and several ounces back at Hongkong. escaped from other jars. Lo saw the cargo on shore at Hongkong.
By the Court-I was on board during the unloading.
Witness continuing-Lo received the freight, By the Court-It went into my pocket. afterwards.
Witness continuing - The purchase price of over Tls. 2 per picul. I was rice is a little never told that some of these jars were broken, nor that some of the rice was missing. There was not room for all the jars in the hold. By the Court-About fifty of the hundred jars were stowed on deck and the remainder in the hold. Those on deck were covered with matting.
Witness continuing-The jars could not have been tampered with on my junk. I do not
→
Half
Cross-examined-My consignes in Japan said it was very hard to sell the goods.
Mr. Steavenson-Why did you not tell him to send them back to Hongkong ?
His Honour-Why did you not send them to Port Arthur? (Laughter).
Witness-I told him to send them back in October. I told all my friends in Japan that they were gool dates, "but they did not want them. I saw samples of the dates in Japan: The consignee told me they looked spoiled. the dates were spoiled and the card-board boxes were stained. I did not get the bill of lading for them on my return to Hongkong till about the 20th January.
as to
His Honour-The question arises whether the defendant wantonly detained these goods, and of course if he has done so he is
M
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.