216
people on the other side. The people to whom the bills were endorsed were the Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China, in Hong- kong, for collection. It was a part of the agreement between the six firms that each should back by indorsement the bills drawn on the other firms. About a month after this combine was entered into two persons, Wong Shing Tak and Wong Sun Nam, came from the defendant firm to the plaintiff firm about the endorsing of a bill of exchange, and Wong Shing Tak addressed Mr. Tang Lam Kok, the managing partner of the plaintiff firm, and requested him to put his firm's chop on the back of a bill of exchange. The bill of exchange was not actually brought, but was coming forward. Mr. Tang Lam Kok asked Wong Shing Tak who were the partners in the Kwong Tak Wing firm. Wong Shing Tak answered “I am a partner Wong Sun Nam is a partner,' and he also mentioned the names of two or three others. Wong Sun Nam said Yes, yes." This eonversation took plac before Cheng Ngok Pan, who is a partner in the plaintiff firm It was under the first combine. A second combine was formed in September or October of 1904, when two firms in the original combine dropped out. The plaintiff firm and defendant firm joined the new combine; there were four firms in it altogether. The second combine closed operations in June or July
+1
1902. The evidence mentioned will show that Wong Sun Nam's statement that he never was, a partner in the defendant firm cannot be accepted. It will show that he is very unreliable when he states that he never was a partner at any time. If Your Lordship is satisfied with the evidence produced that Wong Sun Nam was a partner in March 1901. you will hold that his partnership continued till a later date unless he publicly advertised to the contrary. He cannot get rid of the resĮ on- sibility unless he gives public notice of retire ment, but he says that he never was a partner. I shall call before you as a witness Mr. Chan Kwong Loong, a contractor who has been carrying on business for some years in Hong kong, and he will say that a man came to him at the latter end of 1901 and asked him to go and see the defendant at the defendant's shop. He did go, and saw Wong Sun Nam there. Wong Sun Nam then told Chan Kwong Loong to build for him nine houses on Inland Lot 591. It appears this
was the first time that Chan Kwong Loong had met Wong Sun Nam, and when this question came up, asked him who he was. Wong Sun Nam informed him that he had a share in the Kwong Tak Wing firm. The contract, it appears, was for $35,80, and was signed by Wong Sun Nam in the name of Wong Loong, an alias. Chan Kwong Loong was partly paid in rice, and received orders on various rice shops from Wong Sun Nam. These orders for rice are dated, some in July, and some in August 1902. That shows that Your Lordship cannot accept Wong Sun Nam's affidavit saying that he never was a partner in the defendant firm. We shall call one or two flour brokers who will speak as to transactions, coming down
1904, and they will tell Your Lordship that all of them entered into contracts with the Kwong Tak Wing firm, and that the only person who dealt with them there was Wong Sun Nam. Action 62 of 1903 was an action brought against Wong Sun Nam in the name of Wong Loong, in which name he entered into the contract with reference to these nine houses, Chan Kwong Loong v. Wong Loong. The statement of claim was filed on the 17th June 1903, and para raph two reads. The defendant is a merchant who carries on business at No. 86, Wing Lok Street, Victoria afo esaid, under the style or firma name of Kwong Tak Wing." Paragraph one in the reply says that the defendant admits paragraphs one and twolin the statement of claim.
His Lordship-What do you say to that, Mr. Calthrop, were you aware of that ?
to
Mr. Calthrop-No, but he, no doubt, was a man in that shop, but he will state that be never Was a partner. He only admits he carried on business. He did not say he was a partner.
His Lordship-Loose pleading. Mr. Calthrop-Yes, My Lord. Evidence for the plaintiff was continuing when the case was adjourned until to day.
|
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE ME. T. SERCOMBE SMITH (PUISNE JUDOE).
CLAIMS AGAINST THE LAI FUNG FIRM.
Mr. O. D. Thomson appeared for the Yan Ynt Lai, of 261, Des Voeux Road Central, merchants, who claimed $1,000, money deposit- ed, from the Lai Fung firm, of 63, Bonham Strand East, bankers. The defendants failed to appear and judgment was given for the plaintiffs with costs.
Mr. Almada e Castro, on behalf of the Wai Lan Kang, of 273, Des Voeur Road Central, traders, also made a claim of $1,00 against the a me defendants on account of money deposited, and received judgment with costs.
Tuesday, 28th March,
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION,
BEFORE SIR H. S. BERKELEY (CHIEF JUSTICE).
WING CHONG FAT FIRM V. KWONG TAK WING FIRM.
The hearing of this issue as to whether Wong Sun Nam was a partner in the Kwong Tak Wing firm was continued. Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C., instructed by Mr. H. G. C. Bailey (of Messrs. Johnson. Stokes and Master), appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. H. G Calthrop, instructed by Mr. G. Hastings (of Mr. John Hastings' office) for the defendant.
Mr. Pollock -I do not int nd to call any more evidence, but I should like to address Your
Lordship on the question of the admissibility as evidence of the pleadings and answer in action 62 of 1903. In the first place I would submit that the case of Allan against Hartley referred to by Mr. Calthrop does not govern the present case, because, a appears from the very judgment of Lord Mansfield, the plaintiffs wholly discontinued their action. Action 62 of 1909 is still on the file, and I think that this being so I am entitled to call Your Lordship's earnest attention to the fact that although the statement containing the admis- sion that the defendant was carrying on business under the style of the Kwong Tak Wing was made in defence in 1903 it remains on the record of the Court unamended. I shall pass on to consider the other case referred to, Boilean against Rutlin. It is important to bear in mind that this case was decided under the old rules as to pleading. It was in 1848, and it is important to mention that the point actually in issue in this case WBS $5 to the effect of a bill in Chancery. It is distinctly laid down that admissions in pleadings are evidence, and it is competent for the plaintiff to actually move for judgment on the admissions made by the defendant in pleadings. This is not the view that Baron Parks took under the old procedure, and the reason given by him in a judgment why statements in the pleadings should not be accepted by the Court as binding was that certain statements were made by counsel with a view to contend the case made by the other side.
His Lordship-You draw a difference between a suggestion by the plaintiff's counsel of his own motion and an answer to an allegation of fact.
Mr. Pollock-Quite so, My Lord, His Lordship There is this to be said in favour of your argument:-This is not a sug- gestion by counsel; it was an admission of the plaintiffa statement. At the time when Boilean against Rutlin was decided, was it possible to get admissions?
Mr. Pollock-I do not know, but under the old practice any statement made in the pleadings had to be confirmed on oath. We submit that in this action the only theory possible is that this admission was made upon the instruction of Wong Sun Nam, because it would be absurd to suppose that it could possibly come out of the brain of counsel or solicitors instructing counsel. In the case of Buckmaster against Meiklejohn, in 1853, Baron Parke said pleadings are not admissions, but merely statements which the party wishes to raise for the opinion of the jury. Such was the practice in 1853, but it is quite obvious that such statements cannot hold water for a moment at the present time.
|
|
[April 3, 1905. His Lordship-Judgment can be obtained on a statement in the pleadings.
Mr. Polloo-It is for the court to ask whether the admission made is made for some technical advantage, or whether it is a plain admission of fact. I is really for the court to treat every admission on its merits, and the court as a jiry-
His Lordship-No, not that, because before it gets to that status it has to consider whether the evidence is admissible,
Mr. Pollock-It is distinctly laid down that there is no binding ale in this matter. I think I have established from the judgment of Baren Parke that at that time admissions in pleading were not admitted as admissions in the sense they are taken by the court now. Can it be suggested for a moment that the learned counsel who signed the statement of defence suggested to his client that he should make that admission. The statement of defence must deny all material statements in the state- ment of claim that the defendant intends to deny at the trail.
His Lordship-This admission was not a material allegation.
Mr. Pollock-If it came into court to-mor row unamended, and the defendant lost his case, the plaintiff could ask for immediate execution. Your Lordship is entitled as * jury to take into consideration what is on
record here.
Mr. Calthrop-With regard to the legal argument brought forward by Mr. Pollock, I rely chiefly on the case of Allan and Hartley. Pleadings are very frequently amended. Mr. Pollock said that the cases quoted, all in favour of the defendant, were under the old rules, and do not have any effect now. They are all in the latest editions.
His Lordship-I think your best argument is that the case 62 of 1908 is still locum penetentia, and you may still ask leave to mend it, the case not being concluded. There has been no case like this before. The case Lord Mansfield spoke of was with- drawn, whereas here the case is still pending. I do not think I shall admit this evidence be- cause the consequences might be very serious. I reject as evidence the statement of 62 of 19 3 on the ground that the proceedings of that admission are still pending, and the pleadings containing that admission may still be with- drawn or amended.
Mr. Calthrop-A new question is whether the defendant was actually a partner, and not whether be held himself out a partner. The only evidence presented is that in February, 1901, Wong Shing Tak, who was at that time the only partner of the firm in Hong. kong, went with the defendant to the plaintiff firm, and then in answer to a question put to him gave the names of partners in the firm, and said the defendant was one of them. The defendant will deny that he was a partner in the firm. I shall be able to show that this firm com- menced in 1875 and at that time there were twenty partners. The defendant's connection with the firm was twelve or fourteen years ago, For the last six or seven years he was employed as a buyer or seller. The manager was his uncle, Wong Shing Tak, and if his uncle was away one of the employees of the firm would have to use the firm's chop and sign his name. That is how the defendant used the firm's chop, and signed his name. He did not sign as a partner, but as one of the persons whose business was to carry on the business of the
firm.
When the plaintiffs commenced these proceedings they began by juggling two other persons into being partners in the firm, but they apparently had no evidence whatever to go upon against thes- two, and they dropped it. The evidence of these men is not trust- worthy when one considers the reckless asser- tions made as to who were the partners in the
firm.
After some further remarks Mr. Calthrop called evidence for the defence. The case was
adjourned.
IN SUMMARy JurisdiCTION.
BEFORE ME. T. SEECOMBE SMITH (Puisns JudQS),
Two actions were brought against J. F. Haynes, a clerk in the employ of Messrs. P.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.