December 2, 1905.]
enough money, he failed to carry out the work. Towards the end of December, 1903, in answer to the defendant who was pressing him to complete, he wrote saying that he had not time to carry on. As the architects were at that time pressing, things being very much in arrear, the defendant engaged workmen in order to save the contract being cancelled, and set to work on the site. Meanwhile he endeavoured to get another sub-contractor and succeeded in getting hold of a firm called the Tai Cheong, who agreed to do the work. They did some work on the site, and for that work a certificate for $5,00 was issued. At the beginning of May that money was paid to the defendant's firm, and it was arranged between him and the Tai Cheong Company that to save all complications regarding the issue of certificates, the latter company would be substituted as direct contractor with the owner of the land, and they were to receive the balance of the purchase money. The Tai Cheong carried on the work. completed the houses, and had not yet been paid. When the first sub-contractor failed to carry on the work it became the defendant's duty, in order to save his own contract, to get another contractor to continue it. He did some work himself, and set about getting another sub-contractor. What was the position with regard to the $2,000? He submitted it was clear that the defendant was entitled to it. It was money which was put up by the plaintiff to guarantee the performance of the contract by Chau Ping Fong, and as soon as he failed to do the work the money became the property of the defendant. This appeared perfectly clear and distinct on the of the documents, signed by Chau Ping Fong, which he would put in; these set out that if he failed to complete his contract, the $2,000 became the property of the defendant. The defendant knowing this, was it conceivable that at the beginning of January he should have offered the whole of this money for the due performance of the contract P It was also extremely unlikely that such g ubsequent arrangement as stated should have been come to between the parties. The defendant lost by the substitution of contractors, whereas had the work been continued by the first be would have made a profit of $8,300. The defendant denied that any of the interviews of January, 1904, which the plaintiff alleged took place, ever occurred. The only times he had seen the plaintiff was when the $2,000 was paid in the first instance, and again on another occasion in May or June of this year, when the plaintiff called on him and asked him to repay îbe $2,000. He said he would not, and the plaintiff then asked him for a few hundred dollars. The whole of the negotiations between them were done through a broker. The Chinese did most of their important transactions through brokers, and the principals rarely came face to face.
face
After hearing the evidence his Lordship delivered judgment. He said he did not think in necessary for him to consider the case at any greater length. He had very grave doubts whether it could be necessary at all to call on the defendant to give evidence, except to prove documents, but the evidence of the plaintiff was so unsatisfactory that he could not accept it. It was rambling, and contained many state- ments which it was impossible to believe. He thought the defendant had shown that the contract was entered into, and there was no evidence before him to reject it. The point which made him pause was the question of the expert, and he wished to say it was rather curious that this case came immediately after the judgment he gave the other day on the question of expert evidence. This was precisely the sort of evidence that should be given, and if it had come on top of evidence at all reliable on the part of the plaintiff he should have had no hesitation. The expert evidence of writing, however, could not carry the case, Judgment would, therefore, be for the defendant with cost.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
Thursday, 30th November.
IN BANKRUPTCY.
BEFORE SIR F. T. PIGGOTT {{HIEF JUSTICE).
A LEPROUS BANKRUPT.
Leung Tsun Ting exparte Ma Tsun Shau Mr. C. F. Dixon (of Mr. John Hastings' office) appeared on behalf of the debtor and asked his Lordship for directions as to how the bankrupt was to make out and submit to the Official Receiver his statement of affairs, and attend the public examination, as he was suffer ing from leprosy.
An American has been raiding the Chinese quarter in Manila, representing himself to be a detective. He arrested a man for selling lottery tickets, and released him “on bail "of $50. To work the scheme be bad a Chinese interpreter. When the Chinese found out the fraud, they sought out the interpreter, and beat him nearly to death.
The Official Receiver, Mr. G. H. Wakeman, said the man was a leper, and he refused to allow him into his office.
His Lordship What is the law with regard to lepers here!
Mr. Wakeman--They are generally deported. His Lordship-What action does the Sanitary Department generally take when a leper is discovered?
Mr. Dixon-The Captain Superintendent of Police applies for his deportation, I believe. The debtor has been examined by a doctor of the Civil Hospital, who certified that he was suffering from leprosy.
The order for his deportation, however, has not yet been drawn up. This is a very large bankruptcy, te liabilities being from $200,000 to $300,000. I think it very desirable that a public examination should be held.
His Lordship-I cannot act very well without the advice of the health department.
Mr. Wakeman-I notified the Medical Officer of Health.
His Lordship—We had better send for Dr. Pearse. I will adjourn the case until his arrival.
On the doctor's arrival his Lordship ex plained the situation.
Dr. Pearse did not think there would be any danger in bringing the man into court as the disease was not a very infectious one.
889
Mr. Wakeman, Official Receiver, publicly examined the debtor.
Mr. J. Hays (of Messrs; Johnson, Stokes and Master) represented a creditor.
He
Lak Chiu said he was the managing partner and sole owner of the Wing Fang firm of 63 Queen's Road Central, watchmakers and silversmiths. He commenced the business seven or eight years ago, when he had a capital of $1,500. Besides that he raised a loan of $1,500 from some friends to put into the business. He signed a promissory note when the money was advanced, but it has since been repaid. His business recently had not paid him. He last made a profit in the 29th year the amount of which was about $1,500. found in July 1904 that he was losing money as business was dull and he could not get any sales. He did not make up his books at the end of the last Chinese year, as he had no accounts to render. He never made up his accounts, and knew by a rough estimation that he made 81.500 profit. He valued his stock in hand last Chinese year at $10,000. Some of it had been paid for, and some had not. After he goods on credit; he did not add to his stock, found he was insolvent he purchased more but only got goods should a customer require them. Since December 1904 andĮAugust 1905 be purchased from Messrs. Ullmann and Co. 83,400 worth of goods.
His Lordship Wore these goods bought for customers?
Debtor-No. I bought them for stock. Later he bought $2,000 worth of goods from Messrs. Kruse and Co.; these also went into stock. He sold goods both on cash and credit. He was acquainted with the people he had In his statement he put biddebts at $2,116. given er dit, but after he had given credit he never saw them again. Yu Nam Sam owed him $1,494; this was a bad debt, as he could not find the man, who was a travelling trader. The boycott was partly responsible for his failure, as no one would purchase American goods.
Mr. Hays-Why don't you endeavour to do business instead of sitting down doing nothing? -Because my creditors want me to find security
His Lordship-Not very infections ? Dr. Pearse-No, and he could be stood in the and I cannot. middle of the Court.
His Lordship Would there be any danger to anybody in Court?
Dr. Pearse-Not as long as they did not come in contact with him. They would be safe if they stood a few feet distant.
His Lordship-Do you think it would be safe to bring him into a public court?
Dr. Pearse Quite safe, my Lord. His Lordship-Have we any power to bring a leper into Court?
Mr. Wakeman-Under Sub-section 7 of Section 17.
His Lordship-Supposing he writes, is there any danger in handling papers he has touched?
Dr. Pearse--Very little.
His Lorship Could his statement of affairs not be taken down?
Mr. Dixon-It has already been prepared, but not signed. I am ready to file the statement unsigned.
His Lordship-That won't do. Is there no process of disinfecting?
Dr. Pearse-Oh yes, my Lord. His Lordship-Well, there is no difficulty about that. He can sign.
Mr. Wakeman-There is the question of the commissioner he has got to be sworn before.
Mr. Dixon-I am not afraid of him, my Lord. His Lordship-The question is as to the commissioner who will undertake the examina- tion. You couldn't depute anybody to do it.
Mr. Wakeman-Auybody can do it. His Lordship-It wouldn't be satisfactory unless you conducted.
Mr. Wakeman - I don't like to have the man | in the office.
His Lordship (to Dr. Pearse)-Could you give us a ward in the hospital.
Dr. Pearse-I couldn't do it, but I have no doubt it could be arranged with Dr. Clark.
His Lordship adjourned the case and left the matter in the hands of Mr. Wakeman and Dr. Pearse. They are to consult and submit a scheme to him.
PUBLIC EXAMINATION.
Mr. Hays-Didn't you do a big business ?- Not unless I gave predit. There was very little cash.
Mr. Hays--Isn't it better to do a little cash business than a large credit business ?—You must be a business man to know about these
things.
His Lordship adjourned the examination for a week.
AN IMPRISONED debtor.
It had been
Re Choy Chung Li exparte Lo Tai Chan. Mr. P. W. Goldring (of Messrs. Brutton, Hett and Goldring) who represented the debtor. said that nothing had yet been definitely decided by the creditors in this case. decided, however, that if a prosecution took place it should be conducted by the Crown. His client had been in prison a little over a month, and it was almost time something had been done. He would ask his Lordship to fix a day for him to renew his application for the prisoner's release,
His Lordship You can move your motion next Thursday,
ask for Saturday morning.
Mr. Goldring-Not before. I was going to
Negotiations are going on with the creditors.
His Lordship-There is no reason for that.
Mr. Goldring-Are they, my Lord ? There appears to be little sign of it.
His Lorship-You can make the application next Thursday, and notice will be given to all the parties interested.
”
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE MR. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE).
A DISPUTED BALANCE. Wing Shing Cheong sued Yuen Wo and others to recover the sum of $584.83, balance due on account of goods supplied.
Mr. R. Harding (of Messrs. Ewens, Harston and Harding) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. R. A. Harding for the defendant.
Mr. R. Harding stated that the defendants Re the Wing Fung firm exparte Kruse and had paid into Court the sum of $370,82 on Co. and another.
account of the claim, and $24,20 costs. The
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.