314
SUPREME COURT.
Monday, 30th October.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE SIR F. T. PIGGOTT (CHIEF
JUSTICE).
CLAIMS AGAINST AN ABSENTEE.
The Sing Tak Bank of No. 175 Queen's Road Central claimed from Chau Tung Shang, gentle man, of Nos. 2 and 4 Seymour Road, the sum of $20,000 due by the defendant on two pro- missory notes for $10,000.
Mr. H. G. Calthrop, instructed by Mr. D. V. Sleavenson (of Messrs. Deacon, Looker and Deacon) appeared for the plaintiffs; the defendant, who was absent from the Colony, being unrepresented,
Mr. Calthrop stated that the plaintiffs were a Chinese Bank carrying on business at No. 175, Queen's Road Central. On August 29th they lent $20,000 to the defendant, he giving in return two promissory notes each for $10,000. It was agreed at the time that interest should be paid at the current rate amongst Chinese Banks. For the first month the interest was paid, but they now asked for judgment for the whole amount together with interest from the 28th September.
Mr. Pollock, who appeared in a second action against the defendant, raised the question of priority of service of writ. His client's writ was in the hands of the bailiff prior to that of the plaintiffs in the first action,
A lengthy discussion then ensued regarding the question of priority, re which his Lordship reserved his decision. Mr. Calthrop then called Mui I Ngan, who said he was the manager, and a partner in the plaintiff bank. On the 28th August the defendant approached witness with reference to the loan of a sum of money. $20,000 was advanced him at the rate of $9.80 per $1,000 and after that the daily interest was to be 35 cents per $1,000. Witness had been paid the first month's interest, but after that had not received any; neither had he been repaid the principal.
His Lordship gave judgment for the amount, together with interest and costs.
In a second action against the same defendant, the Soy Kut Bank, of No. 169 Queen's Road Central, claimed the sum of $10,0 0, for the advance of which amount the defendant gave the plaintiffs two promissory notes dated 7th September, each for $5,000.
Mr. H E. Pollock, K.C., instructed by Mr. L. d'Almada e Castro (of the office of Messrs. Brutton, Hett and Goldring) appeared for the plaintiffs.
Mr. Pollock said this also was a procedure by way of foreign attachment; the plaintiffs Lad obtained an order of the Court enabling them to proceed exparte against the defendant.
Kwok Tung, manager of the plaintiff bank, gave evidence in support of the claim.
His Lordship gave judgment for the amount, together with interest and costs, but in this, as in the former case, staged execution until he had given his decision on the question of priority.
IN BANKRUPTCY.
THE WING FỰNG FIRM EXPARTE KRUSE AND CO. AND ULLMANN AND CO.
This was an application by the petitioning oreditors for a receiving order against the Wing Fung firm.
THE HONGKON › WEEKLY PRESS AND
have told his fokis to acquaint anyone who called | at his shop in his absence with the reason of his visit to Canton. Instead of doing this he left a foki at his shop and did not say where ha was going to, or when he was coming back. If the debtor was in such a good position as stated, having goods in his shop to the value of $7,000, he surely could have been able to gire some security. When the creditors went to the shop on the day arranged for the payment of the debt they found that the debtor was absent, and that the foki did not know, or refused to tell, when he was expected to return. Seeing the show cases nearly empty, and not so many goods in the shop as usual, an impression would be left on the minds of the creditors that som 3- thing was in the wind.
His Lordship-It may be perfectly true what Mr. Bowley says with regard to the intention of the bankrupt in going to Canton, but I must ask what was to guide the petitioning creditors as to the action of the debtor? Nothing was said to them about bis going to Canton to get
money.
Mr. Hays-Nothing of the kind, my Lord, and he disappeared without saying where he was going. The debtor spoke about his credit being ruined, and his business spoiled by the action of his creditors, but his credit could not have been particularly good if with $5,00 worth of goods, he could not raise $500. Why did not the friend who had previously offered to lend him money, lend it? Probably he had visited his shop and thought better of it.
Mr. Bowley contended that the court, sitting as a jury, must find whether there was any intent on the part of the debtor not to returu from Canton.
His Lordship-The material points, I think, are whether Messrs. Kruse & Co. were justified in doing what they did, and with regard to the intent.
Mr. Bowley-I say, my Lord, it is a question of fact for the court to say whether there was intent or not. The boycott of American goods stopped the debtor's business.
His Lordship That is rather inconsistent with the idea that the petitioning creditors stopped his business.
[November 4, 1905,
H. W. Looker (of Messrs. Deacon, Looker and Descon) appeared for the defendants.
His Lordship stated that he had examined the book containing the minutes of the meeting at which the newspaper was sold. If Mr. Looker put forward sufficient evidence as to the genuineness of the minutes in that book, the case was then simply a question of argument.
Erilence for the defence was then heard, after which his Lordship gave judgment for the defendants with casts.
Thursday, 2nd November.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE SIB F. T. PIGGOTT (Chief Justice).
DISPUTE RE A DEPOSIT.
Lo Yee Wo, trader, of No. 46 Queen's Road East, sued Kwong Kam Chuen, of No. 286 Des Voeux Road Central, for $2,000, being money deposited by the plaintiff with the defendant.
Mr. H. G. Calihrop, instructed by Mr. O. D. Thomson, appeared for the plaintiff"; the defen- dant being narepresented.
Mr. Calthrop said this matter was brought before the Court on his Lordship's instructions, for the examination of the plaintiff. In bis first declaration filed the plaintiff said the amount had been deposited by him with the defendant on the 26th September. Ou the 29th the defendant made "a declaration wherein he said that the sum of $2,000 was deposited by the plaintiff with the Wing Wo Company to secure the due performance of his contract by (han Ping Fong to build four houses; if he did not complete, the deposit was to be forfeited. In a second declaration made by the plaintiff, on which be applied for judg ment, the second paragraph practically admitted the declaration of the defendant: the third paragraph stated that on or about the 3rd January, 1901, the said Chan Ping Fong stopped work under the contract and requested the plaintiff to obtain another contractor to finish the work. Shortly thereafter the defend nt sent for him end, after an interview, the plaintiff informed him that he would get somebody to finish the work. Defendant said he would get a contractor to complete, and return the sum of $2,000 deposited when it was finished. The defendant then added certain words to the agreement regarding the transfer of the con- tractor, and the houses had since been completed, Counsel then drew his Lordship's attention to the wording of the defendant's latest declara- tion which was filed on Monday. The first paragraph stated that the defendant had had been in Canton for the past three weeks, and had been prevented by illness from returning to Hongkong earlier. He deniel that he agreed to return to the plaintiff the sum of $2,000 and that he added certain words to the transfer of the guarantee of the contract to the Tai Chau firm. Through the contractor not completing his contract, the defendant said he had suffered loss to the extent of $3,000.
At this stage the court adjourned for tiffin, and on resuming hs Lordship delivered his judgment. He said the short facts of the case were that the petitioning creditors requested payment of the debt, and threatened legal pro- ceedings if it were not paid on a certain day. On that day the debtor, having failed to meet his creditors, proceeded to Canton to raise the amount, He failed to give Messrs. Kruse & Co. any information as to his visit, and returned two days afterwards to find bankruptcy proceedings started by his creditors. Granted that he did not go to Canton with intent to defeat, but in order to benefit his creditors, this intent was looked in his own bosom, and Messrs Kruse and Co. knew nothing of it. The question was whether the debtor's conduct amounted to an act of bank- ruptcy. He must have known that his departure would make Messrs. Kruse and Co. believe that he had followed the custom of so many Chinese traders here, and that in not finding him they would follow the invariable custom of taking immediate legal proceedings instead of resorting to more dilatory measures, owing to the circumstances of the case. A receiving BEFORE SIR F. T. PIGGOTT (CHIEF JUSTICE). order would, therefore, be made on the creditors' petition, and the debtor's dismissed with costs.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
Mr. J. Hays (of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master) appeared in support of, while Mr. BEFORE MR. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE) F. B. L. Bowley (of Messrs. Dennys and Bowley) opposed the app ication on the grounds that there was no act of bankruptcy committed.
Mr. Bowley stated that the object of the opposition was for the debtor to establish his character. He had no intention of running away, and only went to Canton to make a loau. The evidence of the set of bankruptcy was absolutely insufficient, and the present petition against the debtor ought to be dismissed, as he returned to Hongkong with the money to pay his creditors, but found his shop in possession of their watchman.
Mr. Hays contended that if the debtor had been going to Canton to negotiate a loan he would have rather courted questions, and would
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. The case was continned in which Tam Man Sam, of No. 19 Jervois Street, sued Tam Yau aud Cheung San Pang, liquidators of the Sai Kai Kung Yick Po Company, Ld., for $1,00) being as to $500 for the return of money deposited by the plaintiff with the defendants on the 2nd June, 1905, in part payment of the purchase money of the business, property and effects of the Sai Kai Kang Yick Po Co., Ld., and as to the balance of $500 for damages for breach by the defendante of the said contract.
Mr. C. E. H. Beavis (of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist) represented the plaintiff, and Mr.
On these declarations Mr. Calthrop asked for judgment, but his Lordship adjourned the hearing until after the Admiralty case, which opens on the 22nd instant.
IN BANKRUPTCY.
THE WING ON FIRM EXPARTE TANG SHUNG.
Mr. P. W. Goldring (of Moss:s. Brutton, Hett and Goldring), who appeared for the petitioning creditor, applied for a receiving order against the debtors' estate. He said the petition issued showel that the Wing On firm were indebted to the petitioning creditor in the sum of $635, being balance of money deposited with the debtors without security. The sot of bankruptor was that the debtors had declared their inability to meet their liabilities.
Tang Shung, the petitioning creditor, said he was a silk merchant. Recently, when he went to the Wing On Bank to draw an amount of money, he was told by the secountant that the bank bai suspended payment.
His Lordship-That is a question of fact. I don't see how the accountant could commit an act of bankruptcy.
Mr. Goldring-The accountant stated that the bank had suspended payment,
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.