bar 19-1905.J
—Did your master tell you to that letter No. He told me on
Tonour here intimated that he did not proceed with the case. He had the rent collector, the landlord and the defendant called before him. The rent-collecto: he committed to gaol for two mouths with hard labour for giving false testimony. Before dis. missing the other two he told them they also had narrowly escaped going to gaol. The whole thing was a made up job, and the notion would be non-suited without costs, His Honoar remarking in conclusion that he thought Chu y Kwai, was lucky not to have to join the rent
collector.
Tuesday, Stu September.
IN BANKRUPTCY.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
His Lordship Do you pr pose to argue that that examina ion and acceptance stopi them from showing that the crackers were in fact bad. Mr. Calthrop-Certainly, my Ljrd. What the defendants said was-There are the crack rs; satisfy your selv s as to whether they are good. We don't guarantee them, but you can examine as many a1y u like, bu if you tike them they are to be paill for."
His Lordship-The plaintiffs expected the crackers would exploda.
Mr. Caltrop-Yes, my Lord, but they did not expect the whole lot to go off The defen fants accepted no respon ibi ry as the plaintiffs had every opportunity of making a satisfactory examination.
His Lordship-They thought it was satis- factory.
Mr. Cilthrop-I woull refer your Lordship to the Sale of Goods Ordinance.
His Lordship--That does not bring in the
BEFORE SIR F. T. PIGGOTT (CHIEF JUSTICE). | intorpretion of the law of contract,
YIK WING EXPARTE MÅ FAI NAM.
This was an application for adjudica'ion by the Official Receiver, Mr. Wakeman, unler Seation 19 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance.
His Lordship-Is it a creditor's petition ? Mr. Wakeman-Ye, my Lord, but the solicitors for the petition appear now for the debtor. It is necessary to get this order as I have to live up the premises. A resolution was passed at the first meeting of creditors that the debtor be adjudicated bankrupt, an ́th Official Receiver was appointed trustéo,
His Lrls'ip-I don't quite understan 1. Mr. Wakeman-I am in possession of the debtor's premises under a rec iving order, au! until an order for adjudicat'on is md, I am not able to sell them.
His Lordship-What do you say has become of the petitioner's solicitors?
Mr. Wakemia-They appear now on behalf of the d-b'or, and do not wish to make the application.
His Lordship-Ha notice of change of solicitors been given?
Mr. Wakeman-No.
His Lordship-There ought to be a statement on the file that they have ceased to be solicitors for the petitioner. The order is granted.
-IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION,
CARLOWITZ AND CO. V. THE SUN SHING
FIRM.
The heuring of this claim for $11,937.83, as damages for the breach by the defendants of their conditions covering the sal, to the plain. tiffs of certain cases of fire crackers, was continued.
Mr. H. E. Follock; K.C, instructed by Mr. J. Haya (of Messrs. Johns in, Stokes and Master) appeared for the plaintiff an M H. G. Calihrop, instructed by M. H. W. Looker (of Messrs. Deacon, Look raad Dɔac (n). represented defend1nts.
Mr. Calthrop-But English law prevails on the Shameen.
His Lordship-With Germans and Chines! You had becter think that over.
|
|
because they expected a mac. of cracker. It would be: matter to know, at what prios they ing tiesa orackers to the m in Amerios. Immediately on t being made, the d. fondants asked to ha samples saat to them. The parohssors sald crackers wer› not mɔrohants al is buiɛnore less they were sold. If they had been going to act in a bons file manner they would reserval samples and sent them to Carlowil orler that they might hɩve an opp of seeing if they were up to the sample; by them in Canton. But oat of 21,000 they never returned one to give an i there was any truth in the suggestion that the were not up to weight or quality,
Evidence for the defence waS OF hearing further adjourned.
Wednesday, 6th September.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION,
that
Carlowitz and CO g. THE SUN SHING FIRM.
After hearing further evidenca in this owe defen lauts breach of their conditions covering in which the plaintiff claimed $11,937.89 for the the sale of certain cases of fi: crackers, his Lordship reserved judgment.
Mr. Calthrop, continning on the facts-The defendan's undertook to sell the plaintiffs BEFORE SIR F. T. PIGGOTT (CHIEF JUSTICE)
rackers, and the plaintiffs were to satisfy them. selves whether they were the crackers they required. They had every opportunity of inspec- ting the whole lot, anl of fading out whether they were good. If they were not satisfiel they could have refused the goods and eme down on the defendants for the special guarante. Tary took the goods without any special agrem at at all, and simply relid on the iosp ction which they mids at Canton. these goods were sent to Americ 1. When they got there they wera hiniled by the arents of the plaintiffs who examine them together with the purchasers of the goods. If these purchasTS had wanted, t.ey had an opportunity at that ime of rej cting the goods, an 1. they ought o hare complained of any defects at once and made their claim.
Then
His Lords ip-The purchaser's position, so far as the examination is concerned, is the same
as Carlowitz's, and the only people who could complain were those who fired the crackers
Mr. Calthrop-Certainly. The goods arrived there, and after inspection the purchasers accepted then. When the goods had been sold it was the sub-pu chasers who complained.
His Lordship-Th crackers were actually tested. Then it was found they did not explode.
Mr. Cathrop That was found out in New York.
His Lordship-That examination was in consequence of complaints.
Mr. Calth.op-No, my Lord. As soon as they got there they were examined.
Mr. Pollock-It was in ponsoquence of com. plaints.
Mr. Calthrop-Purchasers in New York said that immediately on arrival they examined the crackers. Although they said afterwards they did not g off up to expectations, nevertheles, having examined them, they sold them to sub-purchasers, and it was only in consequence of the sub-purchasers refusing to accept them that they mide the compl ́ints.
His Lordship-You sy the American par- chasers accepted them after knowledge of their defects?
Mr. Calthrop-Ye, my Lord.
His Lordship-How would that affect Carlowitz and Co. ?
Mr. Calthrop-There would be no legal liability for Carlowitz and C., to pay their
In opening his defence Mr. Calthrop on tended that the er oker forming the subjent matter of this action was of the lowest grada manufactured in Canton. It was a cracker which the plaintiffs admitted they woull not guarantee would go off, although they wra willing to guarantee cannon crackers up to 65 per cent.
Counsel submitted to his Lordship that this was perfectly conclusive of the quality of the oracker, which the plaintiffs kn>W perfectly well was not a very high one. The plaintiffs rave an order for crackers to the Sun Shing, at Canton, and the Sun Shing ́g t the fire ornekers from certain manufacturers. When they had claim. got a sufficient number, they let the Cat'nuing Mr. Calthrop said that not only plaintiff firm know, and a man was sat to inspect them. The bject of that i spec'ion must have b on to see whether these ora-kera wor, what tlie plaintiffs call merchantable. It wasnotâuggested that the lefendants guaranteed them in any way whatever; they got the crackers from the factory, examined them put them up pozes, and the plaintiffs' gentleman visited place and examined them. All he had to to point out a certaiu bor, and it wä
disposal for, exstination. He
to explosive capacity. this exami tion
he
the cracker
with the defenda
to sent to Hongkong.
H、 SCHWEE and others v. w. vos, UPPEL
In this case the following issu's of law were submitted for his Lordship's decision:—(1) Whether the juris liction of this Honourable by the term of the partnership agreement which ourt to decide this action is or is not ousted
was entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant. (2) Whether the plaintiffs'òlsim in this action is or is not res judicata. (3) Whether the continusuce of these pressat proc e lings by the plaintiffs against the defendint ar or are not vexitious and embarrassing to the defun. dant, and an abuse of the process of the Court.
Mr. E. H Sharp, K.C., instructed by Mr. H. W. Looker (of Messrs. Descon, Loo or, and Deacon) represented the paintiffs, an 1 Me. H. E. Pollock, K.C., instructed by Mr. Har thou so (of Mesars. D anys sall Bowley) appeared for the defendant.
Mr.: Pollock said it would bɔ within his Lordship's reco lection that on the 17th Augast be made an order in Chimbers for the trial of certain preliminary issues in this matter. Oa the 25th Os obar of last year an ao:ion was commenced in the Court at Himburg; by thi plaintiff against the defendant, in which the plaintiff asked really for relief b yoad what they were asking for in this Court. Tuers they asks in the first in xta nos that the & art would prouounes exclusion of the defendant from thi putns -- ship, and in the al ernstive they askel for the disolation. Tust really a larger el sim for relifthin the present action There was by the Garmin law some special procedure entitling partners, under som eventualities to an order to exclude certain pa-tars from the partner- sip. The process from the German Gourt was served upon the defend int early; in December of last your,
Waile judgment was s'most imminen; in the Hamburg Court, the same plaintiffs commenced this action against the detendant for diso'ntion. Đi thể name die the plaintiffs app id exparte in Chambers for a Rec iver, and his Lordship, the Acting Chief Justice, made an order for a Receiver who has remained there until t'io présentt mazı Bətanən
the 3rd and 23rd March judgment; had been dd the purchasers accept th goods but delivered in the Hamburg Conry and that they never com lainel about the defecte The judgment was in favour of the defendants with agen's must have been continually writing until about the end of Jane of this year The costs. It did not, however, re oh Hongkong to their principal in Canton, but th y never told them the result of the inspection plain iffs did not rent satisfied with that j until after these goods had actualy been soldment, but th-y lodged an app'al with the Court by the New York purchasers to the sub- of Appeal in Germany, and uo
their having lost that judgment parchasers and these sub-purchasers made the
this notion in, which their state: oomplaints.
was filed on the 12th July 1905 in that the def,ndant raised the August the statement of defence ma which are how to ba t á d.
v H ́s Lordship-The purchasers' examined the goids just as Carlowitz and Co. di I when they
them over..
3
Felthrop -Yes, my Lord. But they 1 them and found they wouldn't go off. purchasers rejected them, probably
Eegal argumen et con and the
prą
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.