April 17, 1905.]
protect honest debtors and not fraudulent ones. He said :-You cannot spirit away $60,000 in this manner, though it would be worth staying in prison even a couple of years to secure that amount (Laughter). But you cannot do that with impunity. You must give satisfactory information.
IAI LI EXPARTE THE DEBTOR:
This was a public examination of a furniture dealer lately carrying on business at 126, Con- naught Road Central. He had loaned $6,500 mortgage on a house in Jervois Street, and if he could realise this amount it would pay off all his debts.
The man was declared bankrupt, the Official Receiver being appointed trustee.
EE THE YEUNG HING BANK EXPARTE MA
PAK CHUEN.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
Friday, 14th April.
IN APPELLATÉ JURISDICTION.
BEFORE SIR H. S. BERKELEY (CHIEF JUSTICE) AND MR. T. SERCOMBE SMITH (PUISNE JUDGE).
THE CHEUNG SHA WAN CASE.
This was an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision, of the Full Court of Hongkong in the Chung Sha Wan case, Tang Tsz Ü v. The Attorn y General. The appellant claims absolute owner- ship of a portion of the foreshore at Cheung ha Wan, formerly within the territories of the Emperor of China but now within the New "Territories. The foreshore claimed extends for about two miles, comprising an area of about 150 acres.
Mr. H. W. Looker (of Messrs. Deacon, Looker and De-con) asked that Chan Chan Ting be examined. The Yeung Hing Bank Mr. H. G. Calthrop, instructed by Mr. R. had failed for $160,000, and it was thought Harding (of Messrs. Ewens and Harston) appear that money of the firm had been previou ly ed for the appellant and the Attorney General disposed of. He desired the Official Receiver(Hon Mr. E. H. Sharp, K.C.,) instructed by to examine Chau Chan Ting in connection the Crown Solicitor (Mr. F. B. L. Bowley), for
the Crown.
with this.
Mr. P. W. Goldring appearing for (han Chan Ting, had no objection, and the examination was proceeded with. The man said he was manager of the Young Hing Bank, but had no interest there. He bought Nos. 142 and 144, Qu-en's Road Central in 19 3, and could prove owner- ship. He bought the property with his own money, paying over $30,000 for it. Several months afterwards the Bank moved into bis houses. They paid him $270 per month for No. 144, including taxes, and 30 per month for the first floor of 142. All this appeared in the books of the Bank. His salary was $10 per month.
His Lordship-How did you manage to get the $90,000. You could not save ́that, you know, out of $100 a month,
Witness-It was left to me by my father and brothers.
We
Mr. Calthrop-To obtain leave to appeal we
must satisfy Your Lordships tuat the property exceeds in value £500. I have an affidavit of Mr. Hazeland, the architect and Burveyor, whose valuation of the property is $1,665,000. I ask leave to appeal, and that Your Lordships' judgment be suspended
His Lordship, the Chief Justice-It is only a matter of security. You are bound to give £300 security within three months.
Mr. Calthrop That we are prepared to do, but we cannot get the papers ready within three months.
His Lordship-What is the time prescribed. The Attorney General-There is no time prescribed.
His Lordship-If you are not ready in three months you can then ask leave for an extension His Lordship-You will have to
of time on the condition that you find the that. After further questions the examination was security within three months. adjourned.
RECEIVING ORDERS.
prove
Mr. C. E. H. Beavis in the action Kwang Yuen exparte Lai Taz Chon, applied for a receiving order, a creditor's petition. This was granted, the Official Receiver being appointed trustee.
were :--
In the action Wi Leung Shik exparte the debtor Mr. Beavis, on behalf of the debtor, applied for a receiving order. The assets furniture about $300; jewellery about $3.0; cash $1,000; and & claim against Messrs. Holliday Wise & Company for services as compradore. The liabilities were about $49,000. This was granted, the Official Receiver being appointed trustee.
*
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BIFORI MR. T. SERCOMBE SMITH (PUISNE JUDGE.)
A ROSS AND CO. v. the MAN HING LOONG. In this action Mr. H. Hursthouse (of Messrs. Dennys and Bowley) appeared for the plaintiffs. There was no appearance of the defendants as a firm, but Mr. Almada e astro appeared for Sun Cheung Loong, who the plaintiffs claimed was a partner. The claim was for $904.05 balance due on a contract for glass.
Mr. Bursthouse said that last year a Chinese firm entered into three contracts with the plaintiffs. After 8 writ bad been served the defendant came around to Messrs. Dennys and Bowley's office and, after in- specting the three contracts, a settlement was arrived at respecting one contract. The goods were sold by public auction. In respect to the second contract the defendant did not then raise any serious objection, but compromised by pay. ing $200. Regarding the third contract he objected to the price for which the goods he refused bad been sold, and the plaintiffs then managed to get the goods bok ⚫nd deliver them to the defendant. A fresh contract was then made in the name of the defendant's new shop the Man Hing Loong.
The defendant afterwards advertised in Chin-
e papers that he had no further connection with the Man Hing Loong shop, but this was not with the plaintiffs' consent.
After the hearing of the case judgment was given for the plaintiffs with costs.
The Attorney General-And I would ask that the Government be entitled to its costs to date, which the appellant can recover if so decreed by the Privy Cou cil. The Government can give security for that.
His Lordship-I think you might have costs, but at the same time be forbidden from dealing with the property for the time being.
The Attorney General.-The land has been vacant for many years on account of these pro- ceedings. Mr. Slade when appearing for the appellant said that be was aware that whether his clients succeeded or not they would not get the land. but would only get compensation. There is no reason why the Government should not deal with the land if it is prepared to give security to the satisfaction of the Registrar. We pro Fose that
the Hon. Mr. May (Colonial Secretary) on behalf of the Governor gives & written guarantee that, if the Privy Council 80 decides, the appellant will be given & Crown title to the land or compensation. The Government, in short, is repared to enter into a formal undertaking to carry out any judgment hereafter, and meanwhile the land, for the benefit of the Colony, should be dealt with as the Government may consider desirable.
Mr. Calthrop-I have no objection to that. His Lordship-I make an order that the execution of costs incurred in this case be stayed till the respondent gives; to the satisfac tion of the Registrar, security for providing for such judgment or decree as may be made by the Privy Council.
|
APPEAL AGAINST A MAGISTRATE'S DECISION.
Mr. H. G. Calthrop, instructed by Mr. H. W. Messrs. Deacon, Looker and Looker (of Deacon), appeared for the appellant in the case of Li Wan, appellant, and C. E. A. Hapce, respondent. The Attorney General' instructed by Mr. G. E. Morrell (of the Crown Solicitor's office), appeared for the Crown.
The appellant was recently convicted of larceny of money from the desk of the respondent, and was sentenced to imprisonment
with hard labour.
It was a motion for 1 ave to appeal.
The Attorney General-I am sorry to make an objection, but 88 your Lordship | (referring to the Chief Justice when At- torney General) on occasion pointed
one
247
out yourself, if you have not jurisdiction in such a matter it is the duty of the Attorney: General to point this ont This motion is entirely out of form. It should have been a motion for a re-bearing, whereas, in fact, it is a motion for leave to appeal. A motion for re-hearing should have been filed within ten days of receipt of the certificate. The Court's powers in appellate jurisdiction are limited by the terms of the statute.
His Lordship the Chief Justice-That cannot be disputed.
The Attorney General-The last similar objection was in the case of 1p Ting against Murison, on the 1st December 1963. In th instance Your Lordship argued that the case was exactly similar to a previous one in which the same objection was acted
upon. Not more than one fatal blow need be inflicted on this motion, but it is also made on a question of law as well as fact, Appeal against law are governed by a other section of the Magistrates Ordinanc. But my first obj ction is sufficient: The defendant failed to comply with Section 104 of the Magistra'es
Ordinance.
-
are
Mr. Calthrop-My friend is arguing merely on a matter of form. There is no question of what we
WA are appealing against. really asking for the case to be re-heard. His Lordship--This, then is your argument: here is no form in the Ordinance, no schedule form for asking that a case be re-heard. What about Section 14. Under the circum- stances I am sorry to have to uphold this.
Mr. Calthrop-May I amend?
His Lordship-Where is the poa er of the Full Court to allow you to amend? The Full Court has no power except that conferred on it by the statute. The Original Court has that power. What you can do, if you are in time, is to withdraw this notice and give a proper motion. You are four days late.
Mr. Calthrop-I would point out that the case was adjourned to sait Your Lordship. If it had been heard as arranged, and this objec- tion had been raised by my friend, there would have been time. My friend dd not then appear.
His Lordship-I am very sorry.
The Attorney General-I have not had au opportunity to make an objection.
His Lordship--The motion has to be dis- missed with costs.
COMPANIES.
ROPE MANUFAC- FURING CO., LD.
HONGKONG
The twenty-first ordinary general meeting of the Hongkong Rope Manufacturing Comp ny was held at the office of the general managers, Messrs. Shewan, Tomes & Co., on April 8th. Mr. R. Shewan presided, and there were also present Messrs. H. P. White, A. J. Raymon i and Dr. Noble (directors), Mr. B. Henderson (secretary), and Mr. Fung Wa Chun.
The CHAIRMAN-Gentlemen, with your per- mission we will take the report and accounts which have been circulated for some time past as read. I have very little comment to make on them. The year 1904 was a very quiet year Our total turnover was within 5 too8 for us. of the previous year, and our gross profit ab ut The net result is almost the sam, $5,000 more. viz:-$121,137.07 of which it is proposed to place to Reserve Fund $10,000, and pay a dividend of 20 per cent. absorbing $100,000, leaving $11,137,07 to be carried forward to credit of this year's account. The hemp market at Manila experienced the usual fluctuations during the year, but on the whole the price was slightly lower than before, and this year I am glad to say we have bought at slightly lower prices still. It is to be hoped that this down- ward tenderey may continue, for the high cost of rope curtails the demand, as it conduces to economy on the part of consumers who are naturally not inclined to buy as much rope at 30 to 40 cents as they used to do when the price was only 15 to 20 cents per lb.
A high rate of exchange which so many people, pra for is also anything but a blessing to us, for it makes our product dearer in euntries with a gold carrency or gold standard, such as Aus.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.