Page
July 14, 1906.]
Wednesday, 11th July.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE MR. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE).
ALLEGED WRONGFUL ARREST.
The Shing Wo firm sued Tam Yak-ming to recover the sum of $308.80, balance due for goods sold and delivered.
Mr. F. X. d'Almada e Castro appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. C. F. Dixon (of Mr. John Hastings' office) for the defendant.
Mr. Dixon said he consented to judgment for the amount endorsed on the writ, but wished to go on with the case for the purpose of asking his Lordship to award damages to the defendant for wrongful arrest by the plaintiff. Mr. Dixon referred his Lordship to section 571 of the Code.
His Lordship (after reading it)-That refers to not more than $1,000, eh?
was
Mr. Dixon-I don't want more than $1,000, my Lord. The defendant arrested by an application supported by a declaration made by one, Chan Tak-fan, an accountant in the plaintiff firm. In paragraph 3 of that declaration he stated that he saw the defendant at 137, Hollywood Road, second floor, personally demanded payment of the amount due, and informed defendant that if the amount were not paid his master would sue him, whereupon the defendant said he would immediately leave the Colony. The defendant would give evidence and say he never had an interview with Chan Tak-fan in Hollywood Road, and his evidence would be corroborated by his wife, who would say it was perfectly true that Chan Tak-fan had called upon her husband, but that the defendant was not in.
His Lordship-Is she agent for her husband Mr. Dixon-Yes, but she did not tell the accountant defendant would run away.
His Lordship-Your remedy is to prosecute him in the Police Court for perjury.
Mr. Dixon-Surely, my Lord, I have my remedy with you?
His Lordship-You must bring a fresh action. It is no good calling defendant, and defendant's wife in this. I have got to try an issue.
Mr. Dixon-I only consented to judgment on the understanding-
His Lordship Well, let us try the action. Mr. Dixon-Well, my Lord, shall I be per- mitted to call evidence to prove that these allegations are untrue?
;
His Lordship Certainly not.
You can bring another action or you can prosecute.
Mr. Dixon-I understood from your Lordship when I applied in chambers that I might bring this action to recover damages.
His Lordship-In the course of the action if
I find in favour of you, and find that the
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
Plaintiff You, yourself, told me he had not. Mr. Dixon said his defence was that the second $150 was not borrowed, hat was due to defendant on the dissolution of the partnership.
Mr. Dixon (to plaintiff)-Why did you dis solve partnership?
Plaintiff-Because defendant could not supply his share of the capital.
find?
His Lordship-How much did the defendant
Plaintiff-He didn't find anything.
If this man couldn't find a cash, why should His Lordship-Well, there is an end of it.
the plaintiff lend him $150 when he is worthless? Mr. Gardiner-I think I will explain that to your Lordship.
His Lordship-I hope you will?
Mr. Gardiner I will just ask him now. (To plaintiff)-When the defendant entered into the contract what was he to find, cash or security?
Plaintiff-He was to find title deeds with a view to depositing them with the bank in the shape of security.
His Lordship-The defendant is supposed to have taken a $40,000 share in this business.
Mr. Gardiner Yes, and for that share he was to deposit deeds.
His Lordship-Well, where does the $150 come in ?
¡
Mr. Gardiner-That was not for security, it was to pay bis fokis in the Wa Kee firm.
His Lordship-No man can be such a fool, after going in with a partner for a $40,000 share in a business, and finding that he cannot get a cent out of him, to lend him $150.
Mr. Gardiner-The defendant goes to the plaintiff, says he is not in a position to furnish capital, and asks that the partnership agree- ment be cancelled.
His Lordship-Yes, and borrows $150. It is the most curious business transaction I have heard of.
Mr. Gardiner-We had security though. extent of $150. The defendant deposited furniture to the
Mr. Dixon-That is for the first $150. Mr. Gardiner-No.
His Lordsbip-Very well, why do you sue? Why don't you sell it by auction and then claim the balance?
Mr. Gardiner Why should I when I have my remedy here?
Defendant was called, and acknowledged receiving the second $150, which was to pay the with the authority of the plaintiff. wages of two employees. The money was paid
His Lordship gave judgment for defendant
and costs.
Thursday, July 12th.
IN BANKRUPTCY,
PETITION DISMISSED.
25
Debtor-I was sent to gaol, so don't know what became of them..
Continuing, debtor said his furniture and chattels were worth $120, his book debts amounted to $6,300, due from persons residing in the Colony, and of which he thought $3,000 could be collected. His liabilities were $11,500. The plaintiff was called and said he obtained $1,200 from the safe mentioned.
His Lordship-What was it seized for? Mr. Howell-Under a writ of execution for a sum of about $500.
Mr. Harding asked his Lordship for a receiving order, stating that the assets would work out at $1,200 less costs of action and plus furniture $120 and book debts $3,000.
His Lordship granted the order. Mr. Harding then applied for the debtor's release, and an order was made accordingly.
A DIFFICULTY.
The Fung Shung
Fak.
firut ex parte Chan Chi-
This was an application for payment out of costs. Mr. C. F. Dixon (of Mr. John Hastings' office) appeared for six greditors, and Mr. R. A.
Harding for the petitiohing creditor.
Mr. Dixon said he represented the plaintiffs in six summary actions connected with this
case.
His Lordship-There is another application by Mr. Lee Jones. Why didn't you include that in your costs?
Mr. Dixon-Because it was in an originel action. The debtor was suffering from leprosy, and Mr. Jones had to examine him.
His Lordship-There is some mistaken idea that leprosy is contagious. It is if you were confined with a leper for about six months.
Mr. Dixon said his application was made under section 33, sub-section 2.
His Lordship-Who was the creditor in the original action ?
Mr. Dixon-The plaintiff was a man named Leung_Man-po.
His Lordship-Did he get a judgment? Mr. Dixon-No, the case was going on when the petition was filed.
His Lordship-I should like to give Mr. Jones something, but I don't see my way. I can grant your application, but I must adjourn Mr. Jones' for the present because I don't really see how I am going to do it. Have you any objection?
Mr. Dixon-No.
Mr. Lordship-There is only $800 in Court and if I pay your costs there will be only $375 for Messrs. Jones and Nolan.
Mr. Harding said Mr. Jones' fees ought to be paid, and since Mr. Dixon's client had made an application it seemed to him that he ought to pay the fees.
His Lordship-In the original action ? Mr. Harding-Yes, my Lord.
Mr. Dixon-I have proved for the amount of
His Lordship--And your costs ?
plaintiffs' claim is false, knowingly and basely BEFORE ME. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE), the claim in the original action. false, then I can give you damages.
Mr. Dixon-But we admit the debt. His Lordship-Well, you can now take out a writ for false imprisonment, or prosecute on the affidavit.
Mr. Dixon-Well, my Lord, I consent to judgment.
His Lordship-You can take any action you like on another writ.
Judgment was for the plaintiff.
AN INVOLVED BUSINESS TRANSACTION.
Yu Chuk-sang v. Teung Yau-kai was a claim to recover $152.68 due for money lent and interest thereon.
Mr. J. H. Gardiner (of Mr. O. D. Thomson's office) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. U. F. Dixon (of Mr. John Hastings' office) represented the defendant.
Mr. Gardiner said two writs were issued by the plaintiff, in which he claimed two amounts of $150 from the defendant. One amount had been repaid, but the defendant gave an acknow- ledgment for the second and stored some furni- ture with the plaintiff as there was some talk of their entering into business together. That arrangement never went through and the furniture was still with the plaintiff although defendant was notified to remove it.
Re the Hop Wo-chan firm ex parte Yik Yee- cheang and the Shing Kee firm.
Mr. H. K. Holmes, who appeared for the petitioning creditor, said his Lordship allowed an adjournment some two weeks ago in order to ascertain whether the principal creditor in the speaker's declaration of assets could be found. Mr. Holmes had endeavoured to find the man, but learned that he had gone away, 80 the result was he could only show a very small sum, $100 odd, as assets.
His Lordship-What is your application to- day?
Mr. Holmes-I simply appear before your Lordship to say I have made inquiries and am unable to show that the amount mentioned in the declaration of assets can be recovered.
His Lordship-The petition is dismissed.
'RECEIVING ORDER GEANTED. Tong Chak-po ex parte the debtor. Mr. R. A. Harding, who represented the debtor. said the petition was filed by the debtor on Wednesday. He described himself as a money-changer carrying on business under the style of the Tak Tong Cheung Keo at No. 100, Queen's Road Central.
Plaintiff gave evidence to the effect that the amount was still due, and produced an acknow-consisted of two iron safes. ledgment.
Debtor was put in the box and said his assets
Mr. Gardiner-Has the defendant paid you this $150 ?
•
His Lordship-With no money in them? Debtor-One safe contained $1,700 cash. His Lordship-Who's got the safes?
|
|
Mr. Dixon-No, my Lord. If Ï included the commissioner's fees in the bill of costs that would be an admission that the plaintiff is liable, and I submit he is not.
His Lordship-The applications for costs in the summary actions are granted. My decision with regard to Mr. Jones' fees is reserved, but I certainly think he ought to get them.
PUBLIC EXAMINATION.
Re Li Tak-ng ex parte the debtor.
This was a public examination conducted by Mr. G. H. Wakeman, Official Receiver. Mr. E. J. Grist (of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist) appeared for the debtor, and Mr. R. F. C. Master (of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master) appeared on behalf of a creditor.
F
Li Tah-ng said he lately carried on business as a general merchant, at No. 5, Yuen On Street. He was sole owner and commenced ́ business on April 27th, 1905, with a capital of $1,600. The chief part of his business was exporting goods to California. He exported goods to the Kwong Liu Yuen Kee to the value of $6,000 odd, and only received ou account a sum of $800. That firm ceased to carry on business in February or March of this year because of the earthquake and fire. The Lee Tai-lung of New York owed him $3,450, and hereceived an installment from them in February or March of this year. He shipped the goods at the end of last and at the beginning of this year, and the money could probably be recovered.
}
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.