130
SUPREME COURT.
Friday, August 24th.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION,
Berezz Mr. A. G. Wisz (PUISNE JUDGE).
NOT THE MAN.
The case was concluded in which Sudba Sing sued Ah Hau to recover the sum of $30, money lent.
Mr. J. H. Gardiner (of Mr. O. D. Thomson's office) appeared for plaintiff, and defendant appeared in person.
Mr. Gardiner scid he would call the No. 1 fitter at the sugar refinery to prove that defendant was known by the name of Ah Hau.
His Lordship-Then I will put the bailiff in the box and upset that evidence. Your man produces a witness who contradicts him flatly as to where he left the money.
Mr. Gardiner-If the defendant is the man who received the money and signed the document, even although all other facts may
be
I submit he is bound to pay wrong, under that document.
His Lordship-Defendant says he is not the man. I sent the bailiff with a man to the shop where the document was supposed to have been signed, and the shopkeeper said he knew nothing
about it.
Mr. Gardiner-The document may have been signed there, and this man may have taken no notice.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS ÅND
Defendant-I told plaintiff I had no money, but said I would do some work for him, and worked the $3 out.
His Lordship-You will have to pay the 83. (To plaintiff)-It is no good coming up here with a story if you cannot find a witness to tell | the same story as yourself. (To defendant)— The police charged you with larceny and took | the machine, but what are they keeping it for now the charge is dismissed?
Defendant-I was not taken up to the Police Court. There was no charge against me.
His Lordship-No, but the plaintiff was told to come here. I will have the machine brought down, and if you pay $3 into Court you can take it away, and the plaintiff can take the money ont.
Monday, August 27th.
IN APPELLATE JURISDICTION,
BEFORE THE FULL COURT.
THE WONG KA-CHUEN 188UE,
A motion for leave to appeal to the Privy Council was submitted by Mr. H. G. Calthrop (who was instructed by Mr. Brutton, of Messrs. Brutton and Hott). This was another stage in the litigation following the Lai Hing bankruptcy to decide whether Wong Ka-chuen His interests were watched by Mr. M. W. was a partner at the time of the bankruptcy. Slade, instructed by Mr. R. A. Harding,
On 7th April, 1905, a petition in bankruptcy was filed by Ma Lung-po, the creditor petition- His Lordship-I will hear you, but I tolding the Court that a receiving order be made in you before I wouldn't believe your Chinese witness. This is just one of the old stories about the promissory note being handed from one to another.
Mr. Gardiner's witness was then called, and
said he did not know a man named Ah Han but the defendant was known as Ah Ho.
His Lordship-He says his name is Chan Ho. Mr. Gardiner-But he gave the name of Ah Hau.
His Lordship-The "Ah" is nothing at all. It generally comes
after the Christian name. Perhaps plaintiff will find a better wit- ness in another Indian next time.
The case is non-suited.
Defendant-Now your Lordship has dis. charged my case I wish to bring an action against the plaintiff.
His Lordship-Well, go and bring it. I don't mind. I think, however, you will lose money, but that is your lookout.
ALL ABOUT A MACHINE.
respect of the estate of the Lai Hing firm, bankers and gold dealers, of 83, Bonham Strand, and of the 20th April the receiving order was made. Later, in the same year on the 24th November, an issue was ordered to be tried to determine whether Wong Ka-chuen was at the date of the petition a partner in the firm. The trial of the issue took place in April. jury fonud
The
that Wong Ka-chuen was not a partner at the date of the presentation of the petition. On the 28th April notice of motion was filed asking for an order that that verdict be set aside and a new trial between the parties on the ground that the judge misdirected the jury, that the verdict was against the weight of evidence, and that new material evidence had since been forthcoming. That motion came before the Court on Jung
20th, 22nd, and 26th, and on July 4th the Court delivered judgment refusing the appellants'
motion for an order.
Tsang Hang sued Cheung Man to recover the Court on a previous occasion, when the Chief
sum of $20 said to be due on a machine.
Plaintiff said he was a tailor, and had a machine in his shop which defendant took a fancy to. He sold it to him for $20. He did not enter the sale in his books, and had re eived nothing on account. Defendant took the machine away one day when he was out.
Defendant --Did I not pay you $17 on account ?-No.
At No. 2 Police Station did you no' actually acknowledge in the presence of the Inspector that you received $17 That was on account of a mess account,
Lok Hoi, a partner of the plaintiff, was then called.
His Lordship-What do you know about this?
Witness- The machine belonged to the owner, and he hired it out to defendant at $1 a month.
His Lordship-We are getting a fresh story altogether now, Very well,
Witness-Lately defendant arranged with plaintiff to buy it, and it was agreed that it should be sold to him for 820. I was present when defendant took it away but he did not make payment.
His Lordship-Was the plaintiff there? Witness-Yes.
1
His Lordship-But plaintiff says he was not there.
Witness-Ob! He was not present, my Lord. Defendant was then put in the box and said he bought the machine from plaintiff for $20. Be paid $17 on account, leaving a balance of 83
due.
His Lordship-Why don't you pay that?
The present motion had been before the Justice wished certain affidavits put in. These having been filed, leave to appeal was granted.
Tuesday, August 28th.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION,
BEFORE MR A. G. Wise (PUISNE JUDGE).
A CUSTOMS PATMENT.
The Tung Wo Company, junk owners, sued Leung Tak-wan and the 'Tak Kee Company for $39.46, being the balance of the amount of customs duties paid by the plaintiffs to the Chinese Imperial Maritime Customs at the request and on the behalf of the defendant.
Mr. C. F. Dixon, from the office of Mr. John Hastings, appeared for the plaintiff, while defendants were unrepresented.
Judgment for plaintiff, with costs, was entered.
Wednesday, August 29th.
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION,
BEFORE Sir Francis PigGOTT (ÚRIKY
JUSTICE).
APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION.
Messrs. A. S. Watson and Co. sought au in- junction against the Yuen Kwong Wo firm and the Yik Wo Cheung firm to restrain defen dants from selling goods which were colourable imitations of those sold by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs
¦
(September 3, 1906.
also asked for an account, for damages for the appointment of a receiver for the delivery of goods which were colourable imitations of plaintiff's goods, and for costs.
Mr. M. W., Slade, instructed by Mr. J. 8. Harston (of Messra, Ewens, Harston and Harding), appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. H. Calthrop, instructed by Mr. John Hastings for first defendant and Mr. d'Almada e Castro for the second defendant, appeared for defendants,
Mr. Blade, in opening, said that Messrs. Watson and Company had for some time past dealt among other things in peppermint oil and had been in the habit of making up their peppermint oil which they sold to Chinese in packets of one dozen each with a white label bearing Chinese characters and the number 157 in the corner. The translation of those charac- ters, shortly stated, gave a description of the oil with instructions for its use, and stated that it was Watson's. It came to plaintiffs' knowledge that certain bottles of oil called peppermint oil were being sold by the first defendant in pockets precisely similar in shape and general outward appearance. bore labels which were word for word the same Those packets contained one dozen of bottles,
as Watson's, with the exception that instead of the characters representing Watson there were characters representing Johnson.
Mr. Calthrop-My Lord, there is no evidence on the affidavit that this represents a Europeau
name.
The Chief Justice-No.
Mr. Slade added that the only other exception was that instead of 157 the defendants' package bore the number 158. The packets were also wrapped up in similar paper, and each bore across the top a label printed in red. The general appearance of the bottles was so alike that any person having seen one would readily
mistake it for the other.
The Chief Justice-Are the trade marks registered
Mr. Slade Ours are registered. Counsel then proceeded to indicate the differer ces between the respective bottles and argued that certain characters were placed on defendants' packages in order to make them as similar as possible to plaintiffs'. Not only did the packages bear so close a resemblance that they were calculated to deceive but the plaintiffs' oil was purer than that of defendants",
Mr. Calthrop-There is no evidence. Mr. Slade-At any rate it is not pure oil. Proceeding, he said that defendants sold the oil.
Mr. Calthrop-We only acted as agents.
Mr. Slade said the first defendant admitted having the oil in his possession and sold it. With regard to the second defendant, Mr. Lau Chu-pak, who had noted that there had been a falling off of $14,000 in their sales during the last three years, received certain information from the first defendant. That had been filed add he would read from it. On that informa- tion the second defendant was joined to the suit and an application for an interim injunc- tion was sought. Mr. Slade contended that there was sufficient evidence to continue the interim injunction already granted until the trial of the action. They were entitled to restrain the defendants from putting those goods on the market.
The Chief Justice-I will hear you, Mr. Calthrop.
Mr. Calthrop-I appear for both defendants. The Chief Justice-It looks as if there is conflict between the two cases.
Mr. Calthrop-Between the two interests? The Chief Justice--Yes. It looks as if your first defendant was the agent for the second. Mr. Calthrop-Yes, we quite admit that. The Chief Justice How can you resist the injunction?
Mr. Calthrop pointed out that defendants sold so little of the oil, about $300 worth during the last fifteen months, that it was a great hardship to put them to all that expense. The oil was manufactured in Canton, where the Court had no jurisdiction. He farther sub- mitted that there was no evidence to show that the ultimate purchaser would be deceived.
The Chief Justice—If everybody read all that on the purchase before they boughtit there would be no deceit at all. It is the people who don't read that have to be protected.
t
Mr. Calthrop maid that the purchaser could see the differences at the outset.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.