:
October 7, 1905.]
the ground floors, which the owner was prepared to close for living purposes.
The PRESIDENT--This, gentlemen, is an application for permission to count a lane 12 feet 4 inches wide as external air. The Medical Officer of Health still sees no reason to modify his previous report, an II move that this further application be refused.
The motion was seconded and carried.
A WATER ANALYSIS.
The report of Mr. Frank Brown, Govern- ment Analyst, states that the water supplies contain fresh, pure water of excellent quality.
RAT RETURN.
For the week ending 23rd ultimo, a total of 607 rats was caught, of which 20 were infected. Out of 652 caught for the week ending 30:h ultimo, 22 were infected.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT
$1,000 on the oth April of last year, leaving a balance due of $1,000 with interest. The plaintiff decided to forego the interest to bring the claim within summary jurisdiction.
His Lordship-Was the plaintiff the sole proprie ress of the Fuk Shing Wo at the time of this loan?
Mr. Harding Yes, my Lord. Continuing, Mr. Harding said the Kung Sun firm removed to their present, address (some seven or eight years ago, and with the Fak Shing Wo firm kept the lower part of the said premises. The manager and employees of the Fuk Shing Wo firm had to pass through the office of the Kang Sun firm before they could get into the street, consequently they had ample opportunity of seeing how the business of the latter firm was being carried on, and who were the partners. The employees of the two firms bad their meals together, and the plaintif firm paid so much to the defendant firm for these meals. The manager of the Fuk Shing firm would tell his Lordship that he had bad miny conversations with the partners of the Kung Sun firm, and consequently learned who were members of the BEFORE Mr. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE.) defendant firm. Since 1991 the plaintiff had
SUPREME COURT.
Monday, 2nd October.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
CHAN FU SHAN V. CHIU HOK LAM.
The plaintiff, a clerk residing at No. 3 Lower Mosque l'errace, elaimed from the defendant, of No. 3, Old Bailey, gentleman, the sum of 2300, being money deposited with the defendant on the 13th February.
Mr. C. E. H. Beavis (of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist) appeared for the plaintiff.
The defendant, who was not represented, admitted the debt and His Lordship gave judgment and costs for the plaintiff.
F. G. PEREIEA V. E. B. SMITH,
This was a claim by the plaintiff, of H.M. Naval Yard, Kowloon, for the sum of $50, money paid by the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant who is a shipwright at the Quarry Bay shipyard. Defendant did not appear, and plaintiff was put in the witness box.
His Lordship-What did you do sign a promissory note with him?
Plaintiff Yes.
His Lordship Very well. Where is the promissory note ?
Plaintiff produced it.
His Lordship-And you had to pay on this? Plaintiff-Yes.
His Lordship-Well, you got your promissory note back. That is as good as a receipt. What are you claiming now?
Plaintiff-The money.
His Lordship-You told me something about losing your pay while you were here.
Plaintiff Yes. I lose three shillings a day, His Lordship-Well, you will get judgment and costs and three shillings extra.
Wednesday, 4th October.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE ME. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUBOE).
A QUESTION OF PARTNERSHIP.
Wong Chik Yuen Tong alias Wong Ching Shi claimed from Leung Tsun Tang and Lenng Hon Ching, partners in the Kung Saa firm of No. 10 Wilmer Street, and lately carrying on business at No. 62 Bonham Strand, the sum of $1,000, being principal of a sum of $1,177.06 due by the defendants to the plaintiff for balance of money lent by the plaintiff to the Kung Sun firm on the 27th January, 1903.
The plaintiff agreed to waive the sum of $177.06, being the excess of the said loan and interest over the sum of $1,000, in order to bring the action within summary jurisdiction.
Mr. R. A. Harding appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. H. G. Calthrop, instructed by Mr. H. Hursthouse (of the Crown Sol'citor's office), represented the defendants.
Ir. Harding stated that the plaintiff was & widow residing at No. 23 Upper Iascar Row, and the sole proprietress of the business of the Fak Shing Wo. The defendants carried on a business at the same address as the business of the Fuk Shing Wo, and were sued as partners of the Kang Sun firm. The claim was in respect of a loan of $2,000 which had been made by the plaintiff to the Kung Sun firm on the 27th January, 1903. The defendants paid back
Wo
advanced several sums of money to the defendant made up of amounts varying from $2,000 to firm, the total sum advanced being $22,000. $4,000 advanced at a time. These loans -eight in all-had been repaid shortly after the present loan had been made. About this time the Fok. Shing Wo firm removed to another address. The last loin had been advanced on the personal application of the second defendant, who saw the manager of the plaintiff firm o the subject, and the money was paid into his hands. regard to the partnership question-
His Lordship-That is the point I suppose ? Mr. Harding-That is it, my Lord.
With
Mr. Harding here proceeded to read extracts from the books of the plaintiff firm to prove that the defendants had received the loans advanced to the defendant firm as partners of
the said firm.
045
ger of this concern. · At first he refused, but seeing how much he was interested in pall. ing the business through, and difficulties undoubtedly would have arisen through the insanity of the man acting as manager, he came forward and acted as manager.
He' tras appointed manager by a document in court; had be been a partner it would have been quite nnnecessary to draw up a document to verify his appointment as manager, as he was quite entitled to act without auch. As to the suggestion that the defendant's was a rival business-
His Lordship-I am taking your own words about that.
J:
Mr. Calthrop-Yes, my Lord, but I am informed that the business, although of a similar character, is not a rival business.
•
Continuing Mr. Calthrop said it was in the beginning of 19:4 that the defendant took over the management of the defendant firm, but what be did as manager would not in soy yay 3. make him responsible as a partner for the liabili ies of the firm. He ceased to manage the business in August, and before these proceedings were instituted, without noties, it had never been suggested to the defendant that he was actually a partner, nor had he at any time put himself into such a position as to make himself liable as a partner.
Evidence in support of the plaintiff case was heard, after which Mr. Calthrop opened his defence. He said both d-fendants were prepared to say they never had been partners, and had never held themselves out or acted in any way as partners of the defendant firm, which had, unfortunately, come to grief. The only reason there was for suggesting that the second defendant was a partner, was that he acted as accountant for the firm. The first witness called had gone so far as to say that the second be denied. Leung Hon Ching was never in. defendant said he was a partner, but this would
terested in the firm in any way whatever, except as an employee. He was originally in that ployment of one of the partners of the firm as a tutor: this was in Canton, and eventually he was made accountant of the firm at Hong- koug. From 1902 to 1905 he had noted as accountant and correspondent. It was perfectly true he did write the receipt which plaintiff's solicitor produced, but did not put in, and counsel believed he applied for money for the defendant firm. It was part of his duty as accountant to carry out these transactions, and entirely his duty to put the firm's chop to certain documents. He may also have had at times to put his own name as well as the firm's chop to documents, but he never at any time held himself out as a partner of the firm, and there was no ground for suggesting that he was anything else than an employee. In the list of partners pat in his name did not appear. With regard to the first defendant. Leung Tsun Tung, he was related undoub'edly to several of the members of the firm, and for many years had been assisting them. He assisted then by giving security on various notes which had been made by the firm, and if he had been a partner it would have been quite unnecessary for him to have signed his name to notes as guarantor. At the end of 1903 the manager of the firm unfortunately became insane; it became necessary that someone should be appointed to look after the business, and the first defendant was approached by the partners. At that time he had made himself liable by giving his guarantee for a very large amount for this firm, and having acted in this way as guarantor, and having a business of a similar nature in the neighbourhood, the partners thought it desirable that he should act as mana-
The case was adjourned.
MARINE MAISTRATE'S
COURT.
Tuesday, 3rd October.
BEFORE MR. BABIL H. TAYLOR (MABINE MAGISTRATE).
:
NEGLECT OF DUTÝ. Captain Fairley of the British steamer Niths- dale charged John Patterson and James Mon- tigue, able seamen of the said ve-sel, with continually and wilfully neglecting duty on the high seas since 6th September last.
Defendants pleaded not guilty.
Captain Ireland Fairley said the defendants went off duty on the 6th September, stating that they were sick. The ship was then at Rangoon, and he had them examined by-s legally qualified doctor, who stated that nothing was wrong with them. He took them to the Shipping Master at Rangoon and wished to sign them off, but this the Shipping Master would not allow. He told the captain to take them before him and he would see what was wrong. Witness took Montague ashore, where he was examined by another medical man who also said there as nothing the matter with him. On the 20th ultimo, the day after leaving Rangoon, Patterson complained of the food, used insulting and impertinent language and defaced the chart. Since then both men had generally neglected their work. On the 24th ultimo both men went on the bridge in a very mutinous manner and used thr ats.
-
The captain here produced his log, in which, under date of 29th September, he had made the following entry:-These two men continue their policy of doing as little work as possible; they do about half-an-hour's work in their four hour's
watch.
Seaman Montague-Did we not do our work properly on board the ship?
Witness-No.
Patterson said he did not neglect his duty. He was not fit to do it through rheumatism brought about by want of awnings.
*
Montague said he was unfit for duty on account of the hardships he had to bear. It was impossible to sleep in the fo'o'sle where he was berthed, as it was too hot. There were not. awnings up, and when it rained he got wet through.
Charles Davis, bief officer of the Nithsdale, did not consider that defendants performed their duties in a proper and seaman likemaniner he was of opinion that they were gnisty of neglect of duty gen rally,
Questioned by the captain, witness said that when all hands were trimming coal in the bankers, the defendant, Patterson, did not do his work in a proper manner, Montague was at the wheel at that time.
To Patterson-You were in the bunker part of the time.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.