416.
the syndicate backed out of the business, but he did not agree to make any remission of rent
Mr. Bisney, estate broker, said he knew the premises, the subject of this suit. He acted as bröker for Mr. Ho Tung in the purchase from Messrs. Babington and Mody His evidence, was corroborative of what the previous witness had stated. The agrosfllent pro duced was written at witness' office and signed at Chung Shun-koo's house. Defendant asked witness to try to negotiate for the Daily Press to remain on, and witness saw Mr. Hals of that office, who said that another agreement had been entered into by which they were absolu sly bound. It was not cor- rest, as had been, said, that witness informed defendant that the Daily Press would vacate in February, 1905. There was no foundation for that statement, nor for the statements made by Chung Shan-koo that witness promised him six months' vacant possession. There was no promise whatever as to what date the Daily Press would vacate. Their new premises were then, occupied by Dodwell & Co., but witness did not know when that firm vacated the premises.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
| tiff was bound to give them possession of the whole of those promises by the 186 of July, The rent was to begin from that date. $2,30 to be paid for the whole of the premises. They also submitted that inasmuch as the rent was due from that date that the plaintiff was bound to give them full and complete possession by that date. It would be absurd to suppose that it was intended that they should pay reat for the premises before the old tenants were turned out. In connection with that question, the defendant denied the allegation made by Mr Bisney to the effect that the defendant was anxious to retain the Daily Press as tenants, He never made any such statement to Mr. B sney; such an allegation was unlikely on the face of it. It was known that the Land Company were getting new premises ready for the Daily Press His Lordship would ses from the counterclaim that, in consequence of the breach of the contract occasioned by the Daily Press not vacating the premises, they claimed for four and a half months' rent, from February to August. Defendant also said that when Mr. Binney asked him to sign the postscript to the agreement, that gentleman Witness was cross-examined at length by Mr. | gave him a paper stating that the Daily Press Pollock, and the case adjourned.
would vacate at the end of February, but that that paper was burned. Mr. Bisney of course denied that.
Tuesday, June 5th.
IN ORIGINAL Jurisdiction.
|
Defendant said that Mr. Bisney approached him suggesting that the premises should be let as a hotel, adding that Mr. Farmer was going to BEFORE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (FIR FRANCIS all his interest in the King Edward Hotel
PIGGOTT).
AN UNCOMPLETED CONTRACT.
The case in which Ho Tung proceeded against Chung. Shun-koo for the specific performance of an agreement of lease, and to recover $6,000, arrears of rent, was resumed.
Mr. E. H. Sharp, K.C., instructed by Mr. R. Stevenson (of Messrs. Deacon, Looker and Deacon), appeared for the plaintiff, and the defendant was represented by Hon. Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C., instructed by Mr. M. J. D. Stephens.
The evidence of Mr. Bird, architect, as to the handing over of the keys having been given, and further correspondence submit ed, the case for the complainant was concluded.
|
and would probably want another. Defendant thought that as it was near the Hongkong Hotel a licens would not be granted. He never made the posal to Mr. Bisney to run a hotel the re. The propos 1 came from Mr Bisney himself. Questioned as to signing the agree ment, defenda it sail he signed the postscript several days after signing the agreement. Mr. Bisu y cae to him in a great hurry and said he had om 'ted a very important clinse from the agreement. Mr. Bisney s ated that the Daily Press would vacate at the end of February. Witness gave evidence in su port of Mr. Pollock's opening statement.
Cross-examined-There was no written state theut of his that Mr Bisney had given lim à paper that the Daily Press would vacate and two months later Mr. Bisney bad torn it up. The e had been several actions brought against him in connection with the proposed bo'el.
A female servant in defendant's employ spoke to M. Bisney visiting her master's house. Sheard them speaking loudly, and thinking they were fighting entered the room and saw Mr. Bisney tear up a paper.
After hearing the addresses of counsel his Lordship intimated that plaintiff was entitled to have a dic.ee for the specific performance of the contract, but he would have to consider what damage defendant had sustained through no obtaining complete possess oh in July. He would give his judgment on that point next day.
The Court then adjourned.
Wednesday, June 6 h.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (SIR FRANCIS PIGGOTT).
Mr. Pollock, in opening the case for the defendant said that as his Lordship would have gathered from the cross-exami iation the defence was a complete denial. In the first place defendant absolutely denied that there was ever any idea at any time of his establishing a hotel or a boarding house there either in connection with No 14 or No 16. With regard to one of the most material points in the case, namely, the question of whether representation was made by Mr. Bianey at the time the agreement posteript was signed that the Daily Press would vacate their portion of the premises at the end of February, his Lorship would see that this was very important, because of course if rent was to run as agreed from the 1st July it was of course obvious common sense that the defendant should have the premises handed over to him and be in a ressonable position to complete the necessary repairs by the 1st of July. He submitted that the defendant never contemplated paying this large sum of money as rent from 1st July unless he was placed in such a position that he was able to complete the repairs and alterations to the whole of the premises. The only way in which it was 4-- reasonable was by the Daily Press vacating Judgment was delivered in this action by his their portion of the premises by the end of Lordship, who said—I hare carefully considered
· February, and his Lordship would see from the the point on which I reserved mypinion last correspondence referred to by Mr. Sharp how night, and after consideration I am of the very embarrassing it was for defendant that the opinion that on the strict l-gal construction the Daily Press would not acate, because if the defendint was entitled to have clear possession washing were attempted in the upper floors the of the remaining portion of the building with water would percolate through to the Daily the exception of the Daily Press ou 1st July dress, who would claim damages. It was a It could not have been in the contemplation of material fact in the case that the Daily Press either party that the repairs to that main build- Lot only did not vacate by the end of Februarying should in any way be delayed by the Daily but actually remained in occupation till the 31st of July, one month after the date when defendant was paying this big rent for the whole of these premises. They submitted to his Lordship in the circumstances it could not - possibly be said that plaintiff was ready and willing to carry out liis contract, and they further submitted that spart from the representation made by Mr. Bisney, it was obvious u ider such a contact that plain-
HO TUNG C. CHUNG SHUN KỎO.
[June 11, 19067
Mr. Sharp (for plaintif) sald {m pomible for them to agrée." The defendi clifmed the whole amount of his counterclaim, and if they were to go into the question of damages he would ask his Lordship to hear hima
Mr. Pollock (for defendant) ́shid, the difference was rather as regards the period, and not is regards the amodüf,
His Lordship said he did not think defendant could claim, for more than one month.
Mr. Sharp agreed.
Mr. Pollock contended that they could claim not to the full extent bût in part of the four and a half months.
Both contisel having addressed his Lorkhip on the subj at of the counterclaim, the Chief ....... Justice made some remark, whereupon Mr Sharp asked -Has your Lordship given judg. ment P
His Lordship replied that he had, and, in-. jdicated that the question of costs would come bes
tp again.
༢
|
+
$
A DISPUTED. WILL.
Li Pu-kwal and another v. Li, Ling shi and another. This was a claim under a will for one sixteenth part of mains lot 239 and inland lot 1,355 and for an account of the rent and profit's thereon. Mr. M. W. Slade, instenoted by Mr. John Hastings, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. E. H. Sharp, K.C., and the Hon. Mr. H. E. Pollock, K., instructed by Mr. K. Harding (of Messrs. Ewens, Haratón and Harding), appeared for defendants.
Mr. Slade, aftir reading the pleadings, com.. plained that the defendant had committed beach of the general law with regard to plead- ing, inasmuch as they had failed to make specific reply to the material facts set forth by plaintiffs, so that it was difficult to tell what their real defecos was. If it had not been for paragraph 10 in their pleadings, he would have. asked his Lordship to give judgment on the pleadings but that paragraph necessitated histo going into the whole circumstances of the base- The facts were somewhat complicated, but ha would take the transactions in chronological order. The plaintiffs were sons of Li Chit, who died in 1898, whose executors were Li Bing... his brother, and Li Chuk-cheo. Li Ning.ic a man of great wealth, was the managing partuer. of the Lai Hing firm, which was composed of himself, brother, and other members of the Li.. family. The firm owned considerable property in the Colony, and in 1881 purchased marine Lot 39 with others, the firm holding three quarters. They developed the estate, and in 1905 the lot was divided into inland lot 1,355 and marine lot 239 by an arrangement with the Government. The facts in brief were that the defendants sold or attempted to sell the lot without having regard to the one-sixteenth share held by the defendants.
Evidence was called and the case adjourned.
Thursday, June 7th.
IN BANKRUptcy JurispICTION,
BEFORE MR. A. G. WISE (Puišne JUDGE).
A DEBTOR IN GAOL.
An application was made by Mr. E. J. Grist (of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist) for a receiving order in the case of Li Tat Ng ex parte the debtor. The statement: of affairs showed that there were $1,500 to $2,000 in cash, and book debts amounting to 81,000, the unsecured creditora amonzting to $18,000. The applica- tion was granted.
Mr. Grist The debtor is in gaol under an execution and it is doubtful whether a receiving order releases him→→
The Puisne Judge--It does not.
Mr. Grist At the same time' it would be quite impossible to carry on the bankruptor proceedings without his release, will your Lordship order his release on bail, say, $2,000! The Puisae Julgó – I see he has book debts amounting to $10,0.0; what is to stop him from collecting a portion of that Pres
Press remaining in possession of the godown. I do not think it would be fair to expect the defendant to have discovered even from the most carefully prepired ́instraments that the retention of the godown by the Daily Press. Mr. Grist –He cannot do it'; it is all in tha would interfere seriously with the carrying out hands of the Official Receiver now. The cuch of the repairs. I therefore think that on the|will be pail into the Oncial Receiver at counterclaim the defendant is entitled to and apart from the cash we are prepared to find succeed to the extent to which it might have, a bond for $2,000. been agreed between the counsel.
Mr. Wakeman—I have no objection.
•
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.