Page
November 13, 1905.]
Watson, fire Wardroom Officers of H.M.S. Tamar. Dr. and Mrs. White, Staff Paymaster Wilson, Major and Mrs. Watkins, Mr. and Mrs. T. Wright, Mrs. and Miss Wakefield, Mr. F. W. Ware, Mr. and Mrs David Wood, four Officers of West Kent Regt., Mr. H. P. White, Mr. A. G. Wood, Mr. and Mrs. W. Wilson, Commander Winthrop.
1
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
His Lordship-Gone abroad. Well you had better pay the amount due.
Defendant-But I haven't the money to pay
now.
His Lordship No doubt that's the difficulty, but I will give judgment and costs against you.
A LUKONG SUED.
Lall Singh proce-ded against I enng Kai to
Mr. Volpicelli, Capt. and Mrs. Vereker, Miss recover $25 due on a promissory note. Young. Mr. and Mrs. Yera.
SUPREME COURT.
Friday, 3rd November.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE MR. A. G. WISE (Puisne Junge).
CLAIM FOR MONEY LENT.
Li Yik Mui sued An Fung Kau to recover the sum of $240.53, money lent together with interest thereon.
Mr. R. Harding appeared for the plaintiff, nhom he called to prove the debt.
His Lorship gare judgment for the amount and costs.
AN OLD DEBT.
The Kwong Lung firm proceedel ag inst Kwok Yun Tiu to recover the sum of $9.50, balance due on acemit of goods sold and delivered.
?
His Lordship (to defendant)--What have you got to say?
D-feudant-The amount has been standing at my debit since last year.
His Lordship-What has that got to do with it? Are you going to the
pay money Defendant-I will leave it with your Lord- ship to decide.
I have not got the amount at present.
His Lordship-Judgment for the amount olaimed and costs.
STRONER EVIDENCE REQUIRED.
Sit Leung Kit claimed the sum of $27.80 from Kwong Chenug Fat on account of rent
due.
His Lordship (to plaintiff) - You are claiming from the occupier of 24 Battery Street. Yau. mati?
Plaintiff-Yes.
His Lordship-Well, the defendant never there as far as I can make out,
Are you the landlord of Nos 10 and 12 Battery Street.
Plaiutiff-No.
398
meeting of the company were: (1) That the business of the company should be wound up voluntarily. (2) That the general managers be appointed liquidators. (3) The registration of a new company. (4) That the liquidators should sell to a new company to be known as the Peak Tramways Company the undertakings of the old company at the price of 82:10 per share and enter into the necessary arrangements to carry the resolutions into effect. They took several objections as to the validity of these proceed. In connection with the first of these he would refer his Lordship to the notice sent to Mr. Brown and other share- holders with regard to the business to be transacted at the meeting. They contended that the notice was altogether insufficient as to the business to be transacted and was also
Plaintiff produced the promissory note, which he stated was sigued by the defendant
His Lordship to defendant)--Did you signings. this?
Defendant.-Yes.
His Lordship-Well you must pay the money. Did you get leave from the Captain Superintendent to come down here?
Defendant-No, from the Inspector.
His Lordship-He knows you have been insufficient notice under the Companies' Or- borrowing money then?
Defendant-Yes.
His Lordship-All right. Judgment and
costs.
Saturday, 4th November.
IN APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
BEFORE SIR F. T. PIGGOTT (CHIEF JUSTICE), AND MR. A. G. WISE (I VISNE JUDGE)
TAMAN SANG U. TAN YAU AND ANOTHER.
This was au application for leave to appeal from a decision given by His Honour, the Puisce Judge, on bionday last.
Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C.. instructed by Mr.
C. E. H Beavis (of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist) made the application under section 34 of the Summary Court Ordinance. He said the plaintiff's claim in the action, the decision given in which they now wished to appeal against. was for $1,000, half of which was in respect to
a deposit made with the defendant for the
sale of their newspaper, and half for damages sustained by their failure to carry ou: the costract. They now wished to appeal with regard to the $500 deposit. His Honour the Paisne Judge, in giving judgmeut, not onlys decided favour of the defendants with costs.d but also held that the plaintiff had forfeited his
was deposit. The contrict was that $500 should be paid down and a quarter of the purchase money within forty-eight hours, while the balance was to be paid between June 2nd and 14th. The whole question turned on whether there had been any action on the plaintiff's part that would cause him to forfeit his deposit monry.
His Lordship--Well, defendant rented those places.
Defendant, on being called, corroborated His Lordship's statement.
His Lordship-You told me last time you were here that you had never lived in Battery Street. You said your shop was at 21 Reclamation Street.
say 10 and 12
Defendant-I meant to Battery Street.
His Lordship (to plaintiff)—If you are unable to produce better evidence than this I cannot do anything for you
Plaintiff I would ask your Lordship to telegraph to the Inspector at Yaumati to make inquiries.
His Lordship-There is a mix up in numbers, I believe; but you must prove that the defend ant rented a floor of the godown at No. 24
a
Battery Street. I have sent bailiff over, but he cannot find out any particulars about the floor in question. If you like. I will adjourn the care until next Friday, when you can bring an inspector or a constable across yourself. (To the defendant) – (f I find out by policeridence that you have been telling me lies it will be rather the worse for you.
The case was adjourned.
CLAIM FOR RENT.
Tam Ho sued Ho Chak for the sum of $ 6 due for rent.
His Lordship-Do you admit the debt? Defendant-No. I occupied his premises for a month and twenty days, and the plaintiff then told me to leave.
His Lordship-Well, did you pay ? Defendant--No
His Lordship-You had better pay now. Defendant-But plaintiff told me I needn't, as he bad given me notice.
His Lordship-But you must pay for the time you have been there. Have you got a husband Defendant-Yes. But he's gone abroad.
The application for a rehearing of the case was granted.
IN BANKRUPTCY.
dinance. He thought he would be able to show that under the circumstances which existed at the time that the notice given to Mr. Brown aud other shareholders Was bad in not containing sufficient information as required by law
and secondly under the Com. panies Ordinance. Taking the notice first; it set out the resolutions to be passed at the meeting, aud which were passed. He would refr his Lordship's attention to the fact that it contained no reference to the Companies' Ordinance but simply to the Tramway Company's articles of association. He should be able to show that the notice should refer to the particular section of the Ordinance. The result of the meeting was that the business of the old com- pany was sold, at what they said was a low and absolutely ridiculous rate, to a new company to be formed with a capital of $750,000 as con.. trasted with a capital of $125,000 possessed by the old company, and this new company was going to spend a large sum of money in con- structing another tramway to the Peak. The circular sent out (marked private) did not give · such information to the shareholders as would
enable them to satisfy themselves as to whether they should attend the meeting or not, With reference to the new company it was very deficient in information and did not inform the shar-holders what was to be done. There was no mention of the proposed construction of a new tramway or the probable cost of it, or of the intended capital of the new company, which, ar his Lordship would see, was most material, for although a company might pay handsome dividends with a small capital, if there was a large increase in capital they would be sure to dwindle away, It was required by law that the notice should give sufficient information to the shareholders to enable them to judge as to whether it was necessary in their interests to attend the meeting or not.
His Lordship-As far as I can see the whole of
BEFORE SIR F. T, PIGGOTT (CHIEF JUSTICE) the dissenters attended the meeting.
APPLICATION FOR A DEBTOR'S RELEASE.
In the case of Choi (han Li exparte Lo Toi Chan, Mr. P. W. Goldring (of Messrs Brutton. Hett and Goldring) applied for the release of the debtor from prison where he had been committed by his Lordship on Thursday on the ground that he had disclosed evidence of fraud in connection with the removal of a quantity of furniture from one of his houses. Mr. Goldring read a declaration made by the debtor's concubine, where n she stated that she had removed the furniture in question without the debtor's knowledge or consent,
His Lordship intimated that he would hear the application on Wednesday,
IN ORIGINAL JurisdictION.
D. E. BROWN E. HONGKONG HIGH LEVEL TRAM-
WAY CO. AND J. D, KUMPHREYS AND SON,
This was an application for an injunction to restrain the defendants from putting into effect certain special resolutions carried at an extra- ordinary meeting of the Company.
Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C.. instructed by Mr. G. Hastings (on behalf of Mr. Brown) and Mr.
C. D. Wilkinson on behalf of other share. bolders) made the application.
His Lordship-I don't see how Mr. Brown can apply on behalf of other shareholders.
Mr. Pollock quoted authority to show that he had the right to sue on behalf of other share holders not present. The motions passed at the
|
|
Mr. Pollock-Yes, they did attend, but who is to say that some of the absent shareholders, who were at some distance, might not have dissented if they had known of the new company with its huge capital I am now informed that all of the dissenters did not attend both meetings. The whole question is whether the notice was good or bad.
His Lordship Any irregularity would be wais d if all of the shareholders in the company were present.
Mr. Pollock then cited the case of Tiessen versus Henderson in support of his argument. There was no mention in the notice or circular of a sum of $10,000 that was paid in brokerage in connection with the arrangements, nor of sum of $25,000 which had already apparently been paid to the promoter of the second tram- way company. In the notice th, material points should have been set out. There should have been notice of the intention to reconstruct. It would appear from affidavit filed by Mr. Hastings that the new company had already been put on the register and, therefore, they had considered it advisable to move at once. The new company had registered its memorandum and articles of as ociation under the title of the " Peak Tram. ways Company, Limited.”
an
His Lordship-I think that a case has been made out, and you are entitled to an injunction. This will be granted, and I think it would be better for both parties if an early date is fixed for the matter to come before the Court.
4
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.