174
SUPREME COURT.
Monday, 4th September.
1
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION. !
BEFORE SIR F. T. PIGGOTT (GHIEF JUSTICE),
CARLOWITZ AND CO г. THE SUN SHING FIRM. Tue plaintiffs, who are merchants in this Colony, cla med from the defendaut firin, carry- ing on busi ess at Ya Woo Street, Cauton, the sum of 8 1,937.43 as damages for the breach by the defendants of heir conditions covering the sle of certain cases of fire crackers sold by the d-fendau's to the plaintiffs from August. Ita t March, 19 1.
Mr. H. Ellek, K.C., instructed by Mr. J. Hays of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master) represented the plaintiffs, and Mr H. Clthrop ins ructed by Mr. H. W. Looker (of Messrs. e con, Lo iker and Deacon) appeared f the defendants.
The statement of claim set forth tha' the plaintiffs had suffered dimage by the bre ch of the cot at between them aud the de eidani- for the ale and del very of certain fire crackers. The sail goods ere purchased by the pliff from the defendan's on various dts and wer、 delivered in due course and shipped by the plain iffs to Amer.ci in fulfil. meu of certain orders. n being opened the sid goods were found to be uot accor ing to the contract, being of su-h inferior quality as to render them wolly unme cantable such goods, or a large quantity thereof, remaine! in the hands of the plaintiffs, bing u-sale-ble. The plain is claimed Mex. 8:4.27802. also iut ret ou this amount at the current rate, and such further or other relief as the Court m ght dec ee.
and
In the statem nt of defenc, the defendints denied that they bad broken any contract Prior to delivery the plaintiffs examined the said goods and agreed to accept them. They made no complain as to the quality until the end of 1991. When the goods were delivered to the plaintiffs they were in good order an condition, of the description an l'quality order d by the plaintiff, and they were merchantable as fire crackers.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
1
Mr. Polock stated that this action for da uages
was brought in
th- respect of defendants' breach of entract in connection ith the supply of ear au fire crackers to tue plaintiffs The defendaut firm. w.ich had been doing business for so.retim in Can ́o, deilt in and sold fi e crackers for export, an bad for
1 som rears past done bu-iness with the plaintif firm. He believed that certain of the business previous'y carried on, before the consignments which formed the subject matter of this action, was of a satisfactory character, but he would prove to his Lordship, that the ens gam nt in question was very uusa isfactory indeed. Sne of the crackers would not explode; others which did, made very inferiorr ports, They were not up to the weight mentioned in the contract, an i were of an unmerchantable character. The writ of summons was issued on the 11th March, 1902, about 3 years agɔ, and the s'atenint of claim was filed in April, 1902. After the statement of c'aim was filed the defendants applied to the: Court for particulars in connecti u with the claim. They were not satisfied with the further particulars furnish-d, and certain correspondence took place between the solicitors of each party be ore the statement of defence was filed. With i reference to the quality of the crackers, a great, deal of the evidence hud heeu tiken in New York on commission, and that evidence would, undoubtedly show the c urt that the crackers were of a very inferior quality indeed jelso shows that there might be a very important
point in connection with one of the defend s in beautiful tbat externally they were coudition. As his Lordship would readily understand, something more than that was requ red of crackers: it was required that they should explode with a reasonably loul rupo.f. The inspection on which the defence laid great stress was by no means a thorough inspection of the gods, which were stucked in a god ten Trns, the plaintiffs did let off a few of the cra-kers, bu' to a great extent they relied on the honesty and integrity of the vendors with
i
;
whom they had had previous dealings of al sat sfactory character. Mr. Pollick submitted that it was impossible for plaintiffs to examin: the crackers to see if there were any laten: defects' in their chemical composition. The d fen lants admitted that t e plaintiffs mule a complaint to them about the quality of the cracker, but alleged that they made it rater late. The question his Lordship had to deride was whether the defendants supplied the plaintiffs with crackers reasonably answering the descrip. tion of crackers, and whether they explode 1 with a reasonably loud nois) If not, Mr. Pollock submitted that the plaintiffs were entitled to the damages they claimed.
The evidenc taken in America on e m nission was then read, local evidenc、 was. heard, and the cas for the plaintiffs cogelu le l.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION,
BEFORE MR. A. G. W SE (PUISNE JUDGR).
SAM WONG LAND INVÈSTMENT, LOAN AND AGENCY CO, LD, WONG MING PO.
The daintiff comping, errying on business at N81 Quen's Rɔal Central, clained from the d fendant of No 178 Queen's Houd entral he sum of $31.12. b ing balance due on account of money lent between the December -n131st January last.
Johnson.
Mr. R. F.. Master of Messrs Stokes and Master.) appeared for the pliutiffa The defendant was absent an unrepresentad.
The secretary of the plaintiff company stated that defendant owed the amount claimed ou
cconut of money lent.
His Honour gave judgme.t for the amonut
claimed with costs.
NG YEW V. CHU KWAI
This case was adjourned from Friday in order that further witnesses might be subpoaaed Tue claim was for $1,90) for trespass to the goods of the plaintiff.
Mr. R. Harding (of Messrs Eweus, Hurston and Harding) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Barlow (ot Mr. H K. Holmes' office) represented the defen laut.
Yeung Chik Chan said be was the landlord of the ground flour of 142 Queen's Road Fast. He distrained on thit floor through his agent He receirl $;), nud for three months rent. his signitu e was attached to the ript produced. He received the rnt for the s conl and third mous
His uonour-You gave a receip' on the 8:4 Mar? Yes.
He then writes to ask you to take two months payout afterwards? It was only one months payment, and I distraine to get a month's payment after tha'.
N, you did not. You dis`rain « for three? -Yes.
And you dil it after he ha1 paid? I was to hand the balance back to him
This way wote you on the 10th May ask ng you to hold over after he had paid you on the 8th, and on the 12th you distrained. What do s it all mean $72 was only given me as a guarante After distraiuiig for three months was to retura one month rent,
Mr. Harding-Did you as a matter of fact over receive th 872 for which you signed a receipt - Yes,
Was it arrangal between you and the defen-
dant that you were to distrain for three months rent and pay him the balance back? -No. He guaranteed for two, and I was to d ́s rain for turee, and give him one months m nay back
His Honour-Did you retura him the one mouth's money!—I did not se him.
What have you done with the money for the You must ask the agent third mouth then?.
about that.
Mr. Harling- Did you actually receive it or did your agent caire it? I received it and
han ed it to my agent.
What did you hand it to the agent for? Is it uot the agent's duty to hand money to you?- He is in charge of my affairs and I leave every thing in his hands.
|
When did you go into the shop and lock the. door?-On the 4th May
Why did you go in on that date?—Bec us@ be owd me three months rest, and had not a large stock of good there.
On what day of the month was the plaintiff's rent payable?—You must ask the agent that.
[September 9, 1905.
Who put it into your head to loo's this shop up: sse ng that your agɔnt know; all abɔúl the matter-You must ask the aga itabout that also, Is it not a fact that you usa d somebody say he was taking th goods out of the shop?-No.
How did you manage to get a guarantee i respect of the man's reat, he already having ab-condel, as you knew?
•
His Honour--The thing has resolved itself into this. I am going to send one of them to gaol if I pos ibly ein. They are lying all round.
Mr. Barlow examined the wituess. How long did you hire a ma shop?One night.
watching this
Why did you send him away?-Because the r. nt of the shop was guranteed.
When did you personally go into the shop. On the night of the 4th.
Wait well stocked-There was not enoug`i there to pay the rent.
How much was the rent?-$108.
At about how much would you price th
$70.
goods
His Honour-Not $100?—No. If they had ben worth that much I would not havs require i
a guarante
Lo $n, rent collector, wis next callid. IIa sid Ng Yew was the tenant of the shop in Witness had collect rents fro.n questi. humm, but forgot when be res ived the last pay. ment. Hiveller brother colostel the roat of this shop.
His Hou year?—Yes.
•
-D.d you distain on hin this
7
What do you meau by say ng your elde brother collect the rant of this shop -When sfer [[am busy snd him ther..
Where is your ren' book?—At the shop. Wha', you arent col'enr," and one tɔ Court to give usile ice about rent, aul have not brought your book?—I dɔn't usually keep an account.
>
A tent callestor and do not keep ar-account ? -Y, I do.
Where is the book I forgot to bring it. Dobite landlord keep an a count? Yes. Where are his books At the shop. When did you list collaot the rent of this shop I don't know. The business did not go through my lads.
Did you ever collect any rest from this. place dil, bat I cannot specify te last occa-ion.
You 'hal "better get near it at one Your masters you know all about the 'mitter -- I didust shy I did not know any hing about it.
Wh Tou tell me what you know at one did you last allerth's rent for this sh 'p don't remembe
Do you think it was any tiin in the 44 raon (My) : - I didn't thua reesive any, ba the landlord did, from the man wh∙ guara itee l.
the What did you dist aiu for? -B caus plowed three months rout,
No he did'nt dia'raind bass I was told ti do so in a letter from Chu Kwi.
[This letter was prolured, but dil not bear witness's name on the eavel ps.]
HH nur That is not your nam? - No. It is my master's.
Ali
your instar told ym to distrain oa
distrsią. tha letter dat d-19th May?—Yes.
Very well, your marer hat rowicel py mnt two days before. Wh is lying now?- If hrc ired the money how ald know abbat it: wouldn't
Why did he tell you to distrain two days after bhal racirel this may? -Ether you're lying or h's is. Way is it ? —Ĺying, whit abbut
Yeang Chik Chan was recallol.
His Honour. Your rente lector ay that n that letter you or 'erd h`m to di train: and you had ained a rc ipt iw days before. How is that? Which do you say is the le, the letter or the receipt? -Both are cǝrrect.
You say
you knew notain: about tha dis riut. Thr at collector sacs you tid him about it knows all about it. I know"
nothing.
Who is lying, thin? Is he? Hy says you told him on that letter t› distrain: -I dit nɔt. I told him to distrain on the 3rd May, bu' nɔt on the letter dat d 10th May.
The rent collector, Lo 8 D. was agai› put in the witness box.
Page 10Page 11
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.