34
to, many residents would be without light in the evening. His Lordship considered the matter of sufficient public interest to grant the juror exemption. Mr. A. H. Ough was also exempted as the firm in which he was employed had prepared plaus of the plaintiff's building, while Mr. Pollock challenged Messrs. J. H. Jasson and G. L. Tomlin because they were connected with the insurance business.
The statement of claim set out that by a policy of insurance made by the defendants, numbered 4,848, dated April 5th, 1905, the de- fendants insured the plaintiff under the firm name of the Cheong Lee Co. against loss or damage by fire as follows, namely, a sum of $5,000 on goods and/or merchandise, imports and/or exports, being the plaintiff's own pro. perty or held by him in trast, or at a commission, or on joint account with others, stored and/or to be stored during the currency of such policy in the shop and dwelling house known as 31 Des Voeux Road Central, ground and second floors. By an endorsement on the policy dated July 7th, the defendants declared that the goods stored on the ground, first and second floors of 29 Des Voeux Road Central were also covered by the said policy, and admitted that plaintiff had declared that he held other insurance on the said insured articles with certain other insurance companies, to the total amount of $45,000. Plaintiff was on the dates aforesaid, and at the time of the loss and damage hereinafter mentioned, interested in the said goods to the said amounts so insured thereon respectively. On September 9th a fire occurred on the plaintiff's premises, 29 and 31 Des Voeux Road, as a result of which the said premises were almost wholly gutted, and a large proportion of the goods there- in was totally destroyed. Certain goods were saved by the plaintiff in a damaged condition, and all these goods were sold. After giving credit for the proceeds of sale of the damaged portion of the goods, and for the estimated value of the undamaged portion, which estimated value considerably exceeded the actual price realised by the sale. of such undamaged portion, the plaintiff's loss by the fire amonated to $51,442.08, which amount the plaintiff claimed and the defendants wrongfully neglected to pay the amount, or any sum of money whatsoever. The plaintiff fürther claimed costs, and further or other relief.'
on
In the statement of defence it was said that on the date of the fire the goods stored in the plaintiff's premises were of a value far less than $50,000. Therein it was denied that the premises were almost wholly gutted, and that any of the goods on the ground floor were destroyed by fire. It was further denied that plaintiff's losses by the said fire amounted to $51,142.08, or to any sum approximating to the said amount, Defendants admitted that they had refused to pay any sum whatever under the policy, but denied that such refusal was wrong- ful. The policy was given subject, inter alia, to the condition numbered 11 the back thereof, whereby if there was any fraud in the claim made for any loss under the said policy, or any false declarations or affirmations made in support of such claim, the claims should forfeit all benefit ander the said policy. The defendants contended that the plaintiff's claim under the said policy was fraudulent and supported by false declarations or `afficmations, inasmuch as he had claimed that there was on the premises at the date of the fire goods to the value of $51,412.08, and had supported the said claim by the production of his books of account; and had also declared and affirmed that he had during the year 19 15 removed from the said premises, or from the Colony, no goods other than those specified in certain statements furnished by him to the defendants, and appearing in his books of account, whereas the goods on the premises at the said date were of far less value than $51,442.08, and the books were kept in such a manner as not to show what stock was on the premises at the time of the fire; and he had during the year 1905 removed from the premises and shipped out of the Colony large quantities of goods other than those appearing as removed and shipped in the said statement
and books.
Mr. Pollook, after reading the pleadings,dealt with correspondence're the fire, after which evid. suce was called and the case adjourned.
{
|
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
Thursday, January 17th,
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
[January 21, 1907.
defendant firm, which firm had no address in Hongkong.
1
Cross-examined by Mr. Gardiner, he said the second defendant was responsible for the amount in dispute, as he was the manager of the
BEFORE MR. A. G. Wish (Puisse Judge.) defendant firm.
A PARTNERSHIP DISPUTE.
The Kwong Lee Sang sued the Wing Hing Cheong and another to recover 8979.53, balance of money paid to the defendants by the plaintiffs and wrongfully converted by defendants to their own use.
Mr. P. W. Goldring (of Messrs. Goldring and Barlow) appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. J. H. Gardiner (of Mr. O. D. Thomson's office) for the
secoud d-fendant.
Mr. Goldring pointed out that to all intents and purposes the question resolved itself into an issue as to whether the second defendant, Kwok Tam-wao, was at the time of this contract a partner in the defendant firm!
Mr. Gardiner raised the question as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to sue in Hongkong.
His Lordship-That is not a special defence is it?
Mr. Goldring-It has never been raised before.
Mr. Gardiner-I think the plaintiff is wrong in bringing the action here. The whole of the transactions occurred in Canton, and although defendants and plaintiffs are at present residing here, their place of residence is really China.
His Lordship-Where was the contract entered into?
Mr. Gardiner-At Shek Kai. His Lordship-Well, I cannot decide that point until I hear the evidence on it.
Mr. Goldring-My clients are resident here, and remitted the money to Canton.
His Lordship-Ou the face of the writ the defendants are alleged to have an address in Canton.
Mr. Gardiner-I think my friend will admit their business place is at Canton.
Mr. Goldring-One of them is in Canton.
Li Pan-po, managing partner of the plaintiff firm, said the second defendant, Kwok Tam- wan, was one of the managing partners in the defendant firm. The money was forwarded to the defendants at Shek Kai for them to dis- tribute it in certain letters.
His Lordship-It must be established that the contract was entered into in Hongkong. At present it appears to have been made at Shek Kai.
Mr. Goldring-My clients are domiciled here, and the money was remitted from here.
His Lordship-If a firm carries on basiness in Shek Kai, aud a firm in Hongkong sends them money, the contract is at Shek Kai,
Mr. Goldring-Supposing I am in Singapore, come up to Hongkong and make a contract and that contract is broken here, surely I am entitled to sue in Singapore?
His Lordship-If you can serve your writ. Have you served the defendant?
Mr. Goldring-Yes, the writ was served here and the breach of the contract was here.
Witness, continuing, said he took the amount claimed to Shek Kai himself, and handed it to the defendants.
Cross-examined-Witness lived at Shek Kai, which was his native village. About three years Agn the second defendant told him he was a partner in the defendant firm. All the partners of the said firm were in China, bat he brought the proceedings here because the second defendant came here to reside. The books of the defendant firm were given him by one of the fokis.
His Lordship-What did you pay him to get them ?
Witness-Nothing.
His LordshipWhen you go back to Shek Kai you are liable to get into trouble.
Mr. Goldring-But the firm is dissolved now. His Lordship-But he has no right to have Is Li the books. Proceeding, he asked, Chik-man a partner in the defendant firm?— Yes.
And why have you not sued him as well ?- Because I handed the money to the second |
defendant.
..
He is your witnes, is he not ?—Yes.
Li Chik-man, called and examined by Mr. Goldring, stated that he was a partner in the
|
Mr. Gardiner—Is that the law in China ? Mr. Goldring-That is hardly a fair question to pat; the witness is not sa expert.
1
His Lordship (to witness)--Why do you say that the second defendant, because he is man- ager, has to pay?
Witness Because I lost all my capital. Mr. Gardiner But you ar› still liable ?— Yes, I know I'm liable.
Did the plaintiff promise to release you from your debt if you came here and gave evidence?
No.
You've done it out of pure love P-No. Who paid your fare here ?—I did.
You came down specially for this case, didn't you?-No.
Then it so happens that you came down at a very opportuus moment.I have been here for a month.
His Lordship. Waiting for the case ?—No, I didn't reckou on that.
Mr. Gardiner. Do you know a man named Kwok Chik San Tong ?-Ask another man of the same surname and he'll tell you.
Mr. Goldring.-Who closed the shop? —-Two of the partners.
Without consulting the others ?—Yes And the oth、 naturally folt aggrieved ?— Well they couldn't fed aggneved.
[f you don't make you must lose, it's either oue way or the other.
After hearing farther evideno› hi、 Lordship said to his mind the whole thing was evidently a got up show. Pisiatif had no basines to have the partuership book, and the books ought not to hire ben hauded over to him. Then a man was produced as a witness for the plaintiff who was admittedly a partner in the firm, sad apparently he had been bribed. "The whole taing," concluded his Lordship, "is fishy, and judgment is for the defen lant with costs.'
Friday, January 18th.
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION;
BEFORE IR FRANCIS PIGGOTT (CHIEF
JUSTICE.)
The Criminal Sessions opened, but were formally adjourned until Monday. The only 0180 set down for trial is one in which Chan- Kau stands indicted on four counts of assault causing bodily harm.
IN SUM ARY JOBISDICTION.
BEFORE MR A. G. W198 (PUISNE JUDGE).
WASTING HIS HONOUR'S TIME.
to A -8801
recover
Wong Sui-kum sued $4, which she claimed was lus for two months'
rent.
Defendant-I only owe one month's rent, and that is $1.50.
His Lorship Plaintiff says it is 82 a month. Both parties then proceeded to explain, and the usher had some difficulty in sileqcing them. His Lordship then told them to sit down, remarking that it was absurd for them to bể wasting the time of the Court for a sum of $4. Later he addressed the plaintiff : I'l give you
$1.50 and costs; will you take that?—Yes.
His Lordship - Very well; judgment for $150 and cost‹.
Defendant-I'll pay her now.
The parties were shown the door. His Lordship-They're sure to fight over the costs when they get outside
▲ CARELESS TENANT. Sit Leung-it claimed from Wong Lun-shi the sum of 824 due for rent.
The defendant's husband appeared, told his Lordship the defendant was his wife and did not owe the money.
No.
His Lordship-What is she, your kit fat ?--
His Lordship-Then you da】 sit down. Call the defendant.
Defendant was called and reprimanded for neglecting to answer her name.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.