Page
120-1908,715.
the Nam Sang Yes firm. It was agreed between 13 the pariles that no cash was sotually paid, but where they were at imus:with the other side | was se toi what was actually the consideration. paids for They confended that the notes referred to win the amended statement of | defence, making altogether $10,000, formed the consideration. The defendants contended that seven promissory notes were handed over as the consideration instead of fire. These notes came from the Nam Sang Yea firm, and were chopped by Chan Kwing-yam himself." The dispute was as to whether there were five or seven notes, and also the further question as to whether it was agreed that interest should be included in the arrangement or not. Leaving put the interest, the amount of the five notes was $10,000. The plaintiff said that this $2,000 was left as it were unaccounted for, but it was arranged that this sum should not be paid direct to Chan Kwing-yam, but to a witness called Chan Yu-ting, a sort of middleman or stakeholder appointed between the partis. Chan Kwing-yam was to use that $2,000 in part to make certain payments. Another curious point raised in the amended statement of defence was that Chan Tack, who held the property, was an infant son of Chan Kwing-yam. The defendant: also alleged that Chan Tack was impersonated by a man called Ko Ah-wai in signing to the defendant. This the plaintiff denied...
Evidence was called, and the case adjourned.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
Mr Otto Kong Bing appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. E. J. Grist (of Messrs. | Wilkinson sad Grist) for the defendant.
Mr. Kong Sing said the notion was brought for the refund of a deposit of $400 paid as security on the hiring or chartering of a steam launch. The plaintiff on March 6th, 1905, chartered the launch Yat San from the defendants, and at the time the charter was agreed to the hiring was fixed upon at $160. On March 6th 8160 was paid in advance as hire, and on the following day | an agreement was drawn up by the defendant and signed by him; and in that agreement it was stated that there was a anm of $400 depaited by the plaintiff with the defendant as security for the bire. On the same day a 1eceipt was also given for $160 paid on the previous day.
His Lordship-Was the rate $160 a month payable in advance ?
Mr. Kong Sing—Yes. This receipt was lost by the plaintiff, but a witness would be called to prove that the money was paid over. The lunch was run on subsequent dates in respect of this agreement, and 88 the installments became due they were paid by the plaintiff, and receipts were given by the defendant. Some of these receipts were not stamped, but Mr. Kong Sing submitted that they might be stamped afterwards.
His Lordship-Can you stamp a receipt afterwards? Is it one of the things you cầu stamp after execution?
Mr. Grist- No.
Mr, Koug Sing-It is one of the things rot BEFORE MR. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE), mentioned in the Stamp Ordinance at all.
AN UNPAID BALANCE.
La Sik-ting, trading as the Kwong Yee, sued the Wing Kee Kung öz firm to recover the sum of $251,40, balance of amount owing in respect of goods sold and delivered.
Mr, Jackson (of Messrs. Deacon, Looker and Deacon) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Ot o. Kong Bing represented the defendant.
His Lordship-Can you do it? You cannot stamp a promissory note afterwards.
Mr. Kong Siug-No, my Lord.
His Lordship-Well, I want to know whether you can stamp this.
Mr. Grist-I admit we signed and gave the second receipt, but not the first.
His Lordship-It is rather fanny. The
His Lordship—Is it purely and simply 'a'da us to quality ?
Mr. Bowley-Our case is that the goods not of a merchantable quality,
His Lordship-Well, let us confine ourselves to that.
Mr. Master-Soon after the goods arrived the defendants went to examine them in the godown. Then they went to the plaintiffs and objected to taking delivery on the grounds that the goods were damaged by seawater. The plaintiffs then bad ■ survey of goods made by Captain Douglas, and on his report it was found there was no sea damaro to the glass. The esses were dusty externally and stained, but the glass was not damaged.
--
the
His Lordship-Is the stuff in existence now. Mr. Master-It has been sold by suction. His Lordship-You are going to call Captain Douglas, and they are going to call Mr. Lammert ?
Mr. Master--Yes.
His Lordship-Well, obe man will probably contradict the other. What can I do ?
Mr. Master The plaintiffs then gave notice to the defendants, and threatened proceedings if they did not take delivery.
His Lordship We have got down to the point of sea damage"
Mr. Bowley-No, my Lord. My client went to the plaintiffs and said the goods were damaged; he said nothing about sea damage.
Mr. Master-The question really is whether the goods were in a merchantable condition.. The goods were sold and they fetched 83:90
a case.
His Lordship-You don't dispute that, Bowley?
Mr. Bowley-I don't dispute the price realiged at the sale.
His Lordship-Somebody will háve to be called to say whether that is a fair marketable price.
Mr. Master I will call the auctioneer, Another point is raised by my friend's letter of
Mr. Kong Sing denied that the defendant Writing in the second and third receipts is the April 21st: the plaintiffs were selling windów
́obtained any stone from the plaintiff.
His Lordship—It.comes to this. You've got some stone which you have not paid for.
Mr. Kong ting-We have not bad it from the plaintiff. The man from whom we had the stone is indebted to us, and with respect to these 40 stones & contract was entered into with him. His Lordship-Yon cannot bring these different actions into this. The only thing I have got clear in my mind now is that somebody has had some stone and has not paid
for it.
#
Mr. Kong Bing-We say we don't owe any money; we had the stones from a man who is indebted to us.
His Lordship-+Pay the money into Court, then if you have an action, bring it against the mau in your debt.
Mr Kong Sing-My friend has an action against the same man; let him bring it.
His Lordship-Are you going to stick to your 40 slabs withoát paying
Mr. Kong Sing-We never had them from plaintiff. We had them from a witness.
His Lordship-I am not going to let you have them for nothing.
{
Mr. Kong Sing─We have to pay the man we got them from The plaintiff in this action has already had $100 on another contract; now he sues us for 40 stones which wers delivered by Shun Kee.
Mr. Grist-You've got to pay somebody You don't care who you pay.
His Lordship-And you can get a receipt in full.
Mr. Kong Sing-The plaintiff's solicitors wrote a letter asking us to take delivery of 71 stones, and he had no stones.
His Lordship-Why don't you get yourself out of this, then you can summons Shun Kee for breach of contract. Pay into Court for what you received and I will order the action to be withdrawn or non-suited.
Mr Kong Sing—If your Lordship non-suits the flaintiff withönt costs.
His Lordship--I want you to pay the money in first The notion is dismissed.
*
‘A «DISPUTED · DEPOSIT.
|
same, but the first apparently is not.
Mr. Kong Sing-They are all the same, my Lord. (After referring to Stamp Ordinance)- It does not mention anything ab ut recepts in the schedule.
His Lordship-If it does not mention any-" thing, why do you put a receipt stamp on? This schedule has been struck out and re-enacted from 1902. I cannot take tbe receipt as it stands.
After hearing the evidence, his Lordabip gave judgment for plaintiff and costs.
Wednesday, June 27th.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE Mɛ. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE).
ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT Messrs. Carlowitz and C, sued the Fuk Lee firm and Fok Kam-chuen, a partner therein, 10 recover the sum of $308.20 damages suffered by reason of a breach by the defendants of à con- tract in writing dated 19th December, 1905, whereby the defendants agreed to purchase 1,000 hoxes of window glass, and have refused to take delivery of 160 boxes thereof.
Mr. R. F. C. Master (of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master) appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. F. B. L. Bowley (of Messrs. Dennys and Bowley) for the defendants.
Mr. Master stated that in December last a contract was entered into between Messrs. Carlowitz and the defendants for the sale of 1,000 boxes of window glass of certain measurements. The goods arrived in Hongkong within three or four months, and there was no question as to the contract.
Mr. Bowley-We accepted delivery of 310 out of 300 cases, but refused to accept the remainder on account of the quality.
Mr. Master-Fire hundred cases arrived about. April 11th, and the defendants refused to take delivery of 160 of them. As soon as the goods arrived due notios was given the defendants by Messrs. Carlowits in the ordinary way.
ris Lordship (to Mr. Bowley)-You admit
Mr. Bowley Yes.
Leong Yan v. Leung Lai-chun was a caso in which the plaintiff claimed the return of ** (hat?-- deposit of $400 from the defendant:
1
|
|
|
|
glass, not boxes," and if they delivered thém contract quantity that was all that was required" of them.
Mr. Dowley-The whole of the correspondence must go in.
His Lordship-All right. I shan't read it. The contract will speak for itself.
While evidence was being taken, his Lordship asked-Supposing a man brought out a dress for his wife and the box in which it was. contained was damaged, and the water sosked through and rusted the tiu lining: he could not recover?
Mr. Bowley-Quite so, my Lord, bạt that is only one box. 1
His Lordship-It would be all the same if you brought out 1, 00 dresses.
Mr. Bowley-I don't think that is likely (laughter).
Evidence was concluded, and the case adjourned sine die.
Thursday, June 28th.
IN BANKRUPTCY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE Mr, A. &. Wise (Porsnu Judge).
DEBTORS' DISCHARGES. REFUSED, Re Wong San-po and Cheung Kung-pat,, trading as Lei Fung and Wing Shing Lung, ex parte Wong Cheung-oi, creditor.
This was an application for the discharge of the debtors.
Mr. F. X. d'Almada e Castro appeared for debtor Cheung Kung-pat; Mr. C. F. Dixon (of Mr. John Hastings' office) for Wong Sin-po; and Mr. R. A. Harding for Ma Fat-ting,
His Lordship (to Mr. Harding) –What is your status ?
Mr. Wakeman-His client has admitted him- self a partner, my Lord.
His Lordship-The same man as in the Lais Hing Bank case ?
Mr. Harding Yeu.
Mr. Wakeman read his report:upon - the debtors' application for discharge. Therein it was stated that the books of the firm for last- year were either wilfully or inadvertently lost; the bankrupts carried on trade by means fictitious expital inasmuch as they were insolvent
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.