September 4. 1905.]
Has your father another family house in Macao besides that in which you live ?-- Yes.
Has he given them to you -No.
Do you know what property your father ha in Ma so I don't know exactly.
He has given you and your brother som · property-Yes, the house in which we are living.
His Lordship asked if both the documents were registered.
Mr. Pollock replied in the affirmative. His Lordship said that it puzzl d him how! tha sub equent doen nent was regis'er d in an apparently different name and the signature not verified in the a. tual document.
Mr. Sharp thought it would be explained by the signature being as ho thought in Eng ish.
Mr Pollock pointed out that the signatur. read the same in English and Chinese but sounded different.
His Lordship-I suppose that in the Land Registration Office in Englaud the first thing they would do would be to compare the igua tare: The whole idea of regist ation is to pro- tect it. Here is a person who professes to be entitled to register the mortgage. He brings the mortgage to regis'er it, aud te signstu e does not correspond with the signsture of the
ast owner.
Mr. Sharp-It should not be so, but this case exemplifies hat is done.
His Lordship It is l'k a mortgage b-ing brought in by a man named Swith and the last- mentioned owoer was Smyth e. It would be the duty of the registering officer to call attention to the fact of the difference in the ames In this case not only is the meaning diffe eat but the way of writing the name is different.
Mr. harp-Yur Lordship will see they are reudered in English in the saiue fashion.
His Lordship-That is not the point. It is whe her the writing is diffe cu*. It may lare a different bearing on the onus of proof.
Mr. Sharp-The Land Office has only n memorial and the only signature on the memorial is that of the rendor. so that they hire DO signature to compare.
His I.odship-The whole object of ristra- tion is defeated.
-
Mr. Pollock Only one person i: required to to be a great sign, the purchaser. It seems pity.
His Lordship --It sems a mes! import .n! question.
Lo Ling Yenk, the eld st son of Lo Chuk Cher, said he had sigued the document in question in the presence of his brothers, 1ecs`ving r. Sin Tak the property, Mr. Haring, and Fan.
The signature on the mortgage was not that of his brother, La Kwong Chiu.
i
|
{
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
Lo Chupg Fan, the sixth son of Lo Chuk Chee gave corroborative evidence.
а as
any
153
(taken place. The property had b en put in the hands of his five soue without consideration Mr. E. A. Bonner, of the firm of Messrs. Dennys wh tever, a'thongh the father really did remain and Bowley, said that on March 31st last he mastor of the situatipu. He submitted to completed the mortgage produced. He had seen His Lordship that there was quite sufficient plaiutiff that morning. but he was not the before him to justify bim in holding that,
Lader that person who signed the document,
matler of fact, although the pro- mortgage 826,00) were paid over by Mr.perty was nominally in the names of the sons Mussco. He had a document of identification in it must be considered really as having been, in which Lo hang Hung, said to be his uncle, fact, the property of the father. Upon the dentified the pock marked individual as Loeridence as given by witnesses, there were suffici
ent circumstances of doubt and suspicion to show Kwong Chiu.
that the plaintiff was not entitled to relief.
His Lordship reserved judgment.
This concluded the case for plaintiff.
Mr. Pollock thought it would not he necessary for him to call any evidence.
Mr. Caltrop addressed the Court. P inting out that they bad had conclusive proof that Lo {
Iwong Chiù had not signed the mortgage as. he was in Macso that day. As soon as they know anything about the matter. on 1st March, they commnaicated with the father. at Macao, who at once telegraphed back. Then they immediately wrote Dunys and Bowley, so that they were perfectly innocent of any of that, what seemel an undoubted fraud. On the evidence he submitted that plaintiff was clearly entitled to ask for relief and to have a
to Messrs.
declaration that the
mortgage was a forged docume.t.
Mr. Pollock held that the plaintiff had not made out such a case as to entitle him to relief.
The question which his friend put to one of the witues-es showed that he appreciated the situ ation. He appreciated that it was not quite sufficient in order to entitle him to relief iu that cise for the plaintiff to prove that the actual hand which wrote the signature was not his, but it was necessary for plaintiff to make out, in order to entitle him to relief, that the signature was made without his kuowledge
or consent.
His Lordship-It is sufficient to prove that plaintiff did not sign the document.
Mr. Pollock-Plaintiff must make out to the, satisfaction of the Court that it was done without his knowledge or consent.
His Lordship - Can you give any authority for that.
Mr. Pollock-I woul i refer Your Lordship to the definition of forgery in Stevens' Criminal
Lay.
Mr. Calthorp-I would call attention to the defence that this is atrne, and genuiue signature
I 40
quits
Mr. Pollock-That is so. ready to meet that argument.
After further dicussion Mr. Pollock sub- mitted that the definition of forgery was making a false statement in the name any person without his authority.
!
!
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
.
BEFORE MR. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE). A WIFE'S MAINTENANCE.
Sheikh Bichon, military pensioner, of 30 Austin Road, Kowloon, and Zuhara, his wife, claimed $100 from Abdul Sattar, otherwise known as R. Sadick, a tramway employee, for the maintenance of defendant's wife, Shah- bralton, from November 21st, 19 14 to July 5th,
en months and fourteen days at $14 per month. The parties had ben before the Court a few months ago, when the original action was at the Од instance of the wife against defendant. that ocasion His Lordship give judgment for plaintiff for li do'l rs pr mouth.
Mr. RA. Hrding appeared for plaintiff and Yr Steaven-on for defendant.
His Lordship-I think there is some misunder- standing in this case. I have decided it before. The lady brought an action before for the same period.
Mr. Haring-But she did not succeed. His Lordship-Not for alimony. She got Sho julgment with expenses for six months.
ined 120 dollars for twelve months and I gave 'her ios'alments of $15 per month, so as to keep
her going a lit.
Mr. Hard ng-I understood you gave this as slimony.
His Lordship-No. I can't do that,
ubsequently His Lordship referred to the arrangement in chambers, by which they tried by meril suasion to get the husband to agree ta su per month. It had wo ked to soma extent, but how far it was legal or not he did not know He had given her the $15 per month act as a'imony but to save her bringing an action men after not. It was for the past debt.
Mr. Hadi g interpoed the remark that the action was brought by differ ut plaint ffx.
His Lordship said that the wife had lived with her parents who must have known that she was bringing that a tion. Continuing, he His Lorusuip marked thit Lo Kwong, said he did not think their scheme in chambers Do Kwong San, the third son of Lo Clink Chee, and full brother of Lo Kwong Chan, said was another name alt gather. Mr. Pollock i would be a sure se, as if the husband refused to said the name it was intendel to suggest he lived with his brothers in the family hous
p the wife could pledge her husband's credit. He was formerly owner of a share of Inland Lot was Lo Kwong Chui, Proceeding he said
Mr. Harding did not think the tradsmene No. 7 but this had been fr.nsferred to his ! — Supposing be could establish that it was
could go en. mother. He also testified to the signa ure on the mortgage being different 'n meaning and character to his brother's nga-l sign du-e. Wit- ness spoke to informing his father that Lo Kwan Chau had been told by two mu to sign Lo Kwong Chin's nam according to a specimen produced and that his father slapp d Li Kwan Chau.
Ou receipt of the letter fom Mr. Sin Tak Fan witness and plaintiff cam over to Hongkong.
Cross-examined by Mr Pollock" is father, luonly one pock marked sou· Lo Kwong Chu, and the signature on the mortgage was in his handwriting. The reason for transferring the property from witness to his mother was due to rumours that he had been borrowing money last year, and in order to p«ify his parents he thought it advisible to assign the property to lis mo her. It was Le, and not his father who gave instructions to Mr. in Tak Fan to repare the transfer. His mother paid him no money for the transfer. He was born in 1883 and was 21 years o'd. Lo Kwong Cha confessed everything to his father when ques tioned by him. It was two months since he had seen that brother, who was " here Lay and somewhere el e t --morrow.
¦
¡
:
Lo Hoon Chung, seconds ¤ of Lo Chuk Chee, a so gave evidence as to the signing of the s:ttle- ment and stated that he sign ture on the mort-; gage was not in his brother's handwriting.
Cross-examined—He could not say in whose handwriting the signature was,
reasonable to suppose the plaintiff knew there was something going on, then he submitted that the plaiut if could not come into this
say he wanted auu
set the d-ed
court
i Lords' ip replied th tin living apart from her hushind he was entitled to have necessaries,
Mr. Harding concurred.
His Lordship said he had given her up to July 5th and now and her extension was wanted. He was quite wiling to do that if the parties - would agree.
Mr. Harding point d out that His Lordship, hd power to amend,
His Lordship was of opinion that that was going bey ud am ndmeut. He was afraid Mr. farlig wo ld have to take -ul another writ.
Mr. Stear us on said the muey was not dus 1 bis friend's clients,
Alte fürther discussion Mr. Harding aside. The Court ought not to be a istieduggested that His Lordship might extend ou the evidenes that the deed ought to be the summon from July 5th to Angust 5th.
Vr. St avenson objcted. canceled, assuming that it considered that the plaintiff could not fa-rly a-k for it to be set aside. Heubmitted that the plaintiff would not b. entitled in equity to have this document set aside if it could be shown there was no knowledge or consent to the particular: transaction which it was s ught to set aside. He would go a step further and say it was not the plaintiff to prove the sufficient for manual forgery, but he had .o show in addition that he had been ac.unted by good faith all If he could satisfy the court through the case. that there were some ci cumstances of suspicion connected with the matter be submitted that he was entitled to argue before the court that the plaintiff was not entitled to relief, and further that he was not entitled to come before His Lordship, sitting as a judge in equity, and ask for a cancellation of this document. Tue evidence showed that the father did not wish Lis unme to appear in the register, there. fore he put in the names of his five sous,although he was the man who was really running the property and carrying it on 10 rest for his own ben.fit. As regards the houses, or at least one of the houses in which the father was living at Macao, an exactly similar transaction had
i
Mr. Haring replied that it was, and that the plaintiffs were the proper plaintiffs.
His Lordship askel if the wife lived with her mother.
Mr. Harding returned an answer iù the affir. native and ad led that the money was due to be pid on the summons.
His Lordship said he wouli hava tɔ n n su`t the plaintiff.
Mr. Harding as ed if the julment previous'y
plaintiffs. given by His Ĺrdship Jid not affect the present
His Lordship-They must have known. Ism She is not not going to give more than $15.
worth it.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.