July 27, 1907.1
oharged at the usual dumping ground and had to proceed to the old ground at Čbin Wan. We would thank you to give instruction to your officer in charge in the event of a similar condition of weather prevailing, as to the most suitable place to discharge."
Dr. CLARK minuted :-In the event of bad weather, I think the best place to dump the refuse would be in the shallow water of Gin- drinkers Bay, but I hope this will be used as seldom as possible, as refuse is bound to come back into the harbour if it is dumped in this locality.
The application was granted,
BATS.
The rat returns showed that in 190, from January to July, 18,609 rats were caught of which 987 were found to be infected with plague | -ronghly about five per cent, of the rate caught were infected. In the first seven months of 1906 the total number caught was 17,257 and 673 were infected-just under four per cent, During the present year 19,552 rats have been caught, but only 20 were discovered to be suffering with plague-about 102 per cent. The difference shown during the past three years is a remarkable one, and there can be no doubt but that the wholesale destruction of rates bas had a beneficial effect upon Colony. The figures for the past fortnight are:-Victoris, 843 caught, 3 plague infected; Kowloon, 472 caught, nous infected.
SUPREME COURT.
Monday, 22nd July,
IN OLIGINAL JURISDICTION.
the
|
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
and responsibilities incurred by plaintiff by entering into the contract.)
tract was taken out of the plaintiffs' hands by (6) That on January 25, 1907, the said con- the defendants and the defendants have posses- sion of the plant on the said works,
through their solicitors sent to the defendants (7) That on January 26, 1907, the plaintiffs and the defendants received a letter of that date a copy of which is hereunto annexed.- Plaintiffs were informed that the works would be measured ap on January 26th in order to ascertain the value of the work already done and that of the work incompleted. Plaintiffs' solicitors replied protesting against the action taken by defendants as being wholly illegal and unjustifiable as they conclusion and as the time fixed for the com- were ready and willing to carry the works to a pletion of the contract had not expired).
+
through their solicitors sent to the defendants (8) That on February 7, 1907-the plaintiffs and the defendants received the letter of that date, a copy of which is hereunto annexed. (In this letter plaintiffs' solicitors gave notice that from the works at Laichikok and were prevented as their clients bad been improperly ejected
1905, they gave notice that such contract was from carrying out the contract of April 3rd, rescinded wholly and entirely, plaintiffs holding defendants liable in damages for breach of the said contract).
The questions for the opinion of the Court are (1) did the said letter of the plaintiffs' solicitors to the defendants of February 7th have the effect of rescinding in any way the contract between plaintiffs and defendants which is referred to in such letter? (2) if the answer to question I is in the affirmative, did the said letter hava the effect. of rescinding the said contract (a) as from the
BEFORE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (SIE FRANCIS date of such contrast or (b) as from February 7th?
PIGGOTT).
A SPECIAL CASE,
A special case was ast down for hearing in which Lau Yeong Wood and Lam Choy were the plaintiffs and the Standard Oil Company of
New York the defendants. The dispate cou- cerned the reclamation at Laichikok with the building of a seawall there, it having been alleged by the Standard Oil Company that the plaintiffs did not proceed with the work with the required expedition and they, in consequence, took the work out of plaintiffs' hands.
Mr. M. W. Slade, instructed by Mr. Has Lings, appeared for the plaintiffs, and the Hon. Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C., instructed by Mr. Atkinson, of Messrs. Descoa, Looker and Deacon, appeared for the defendants.
The special case was as follows :- For the purpose of the argument of this special case it is assumed (1) that the plaintiffs by a contract in writing dated April 3, 1905, and made between the plaintiffs and the defen 1.
ants (a copy of which together with the specifi. cations and conditions therewith incorporated is exhibited, and the declaration of the plaintiff Lau Yeong Wo d filed in this action on March 8, 1907) agreed to construct certain works; that the plaintiffs in pursuance of the said contract entered on the site and did certain work and remained on the site until January 25, 1907: (3) that on January 25, 1907, the said works were not completed; (4) that on January 18, 1907. Christopher Boswood Thomas, assistant to Mr. William D nby, the engineer named in the said contrast, acting for and on behalf of the defendants gave the plaintiff a notice of that date, a copy of which is hereunto aunexed,
> (Mr.. Thomas gave plaintiffs notion that unless they employed not less than 250 men continually on the work from that date and proceeded with all proper expedition he would on January 25th take the works wholly out of their hands and, if necessary, expel plaintiffs and their workmen from the works.)
(5) That the plaintiffs did not comply with the terms of the said notice and on January 25, 1907, the said C. B. Thomas, acting for and on behalf of the defendents, gave the notice of that date, a copy of which is hereunto annexed.
(Mr. Thomas ordered plaintiffs to suspend work as the principals were about to enter upon, and take possession of, the site and works and all plant and material thereon. Thomas pointed out that such a course would not affect any of the obligations, liabilities
Mr.
55
Those
terms of the contract were that the defendants would employ the plaintiffs to do a certain sum of money, payment for the work certain work and on completion would pay them to be made by instalments in proportionate
of the work, 80 per cent. on the termination sum payable was only to be paid on completion amounts as the work progressed. The ultimate
and the remainder when it had received the entire satisfaction of the engineer. terms were the only ones in the voluminous contract which were to be performed by the defendants. All the rest of the terms in the contract were obligations which were imposed apon the contractor. Counsel proceeded to argue that if the employer wished to rescind the contract he could only do so in a certain way, that was to say, it must be consequent on a refusal to perform what was reasonable in the agreed by both parties whose duty it should opinion of Mr. William Danby, the engineer be to judge. What the defendante had done was to rescind the contract in a way not authorised under the contract. They had put an end to it not being done in a reasonable manner, not by on an expression of opinion that the work was the engineer who alone was entitled to give that opinion, but
The notice ou
by Mr. Thomas: nothing at all and plaintiffs might have refused the part of Mr. Thomas was to go out and brought an action to restrain plaintiffs from putting them out. plaintiffs went out but wrote to defendants However
pointing out that they were acting illegally, Plaintiffs waited till they were turned off before they rescinded the contract, Mr. Pollock's argument resolved itself into two propositions. The first was that recission could only be done with consent, and the second was that, even if the work was wrongfully taken out of a man's hands as regards all the pist events, the contract was still binding, and all the terms of the contract had to be regarded in assessing the damages.
Adjourned.
Thursday, July 25th.
(3) if the said letter had the eff-ot of re- scinding the said contract as from February 7th, are not the rights of the parties to the said contract (as regards all claims of either party against the other in respect of anything governed by all the terms and conditions of which occurred prior to February 7th) the said contract and ought not such rights to be determined in accordance with such terms and conditions? If any, in what respect or respects are the rights of the parties BEFORE MR. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE'. not governed by the terms and conditions of the said contract ?
request of the defendants set down a special Mr. Slade stated that the plaintiffs had at the case for trial before his Lordship in the hope that it might lead to a shortening of the litiga- tion. All that his Lordship was asked to do was to give a decision on the questions sub. mitted. When that was given, they hoped the into a matter of calculation. The action, in proceedings would simply resolve themselves which this w 8 a spécial case, was brought by Defendants had applied for a stay of proceedings plaintiffs against defendants for work done.
was a contract
was
The
between the parties which provided that all 00 the ground that there differences between the parties should be re- fored to arbitration. That application successfully opposed by plaintiffs on the ground that the contract had been annulled. question was whether the contract had been rescinded, and what was to be the basis of the calculation-whether the basis was to be on the contract or on the merit of the work done.
After adjourned
ì is Lordship
hearing argument. the cise till to day.
Wednesday, 24th July.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (SIR
FRANCIS PIGGOTT),
SPECIAL CASE.
The special case in which Lau Chung Wood and Lam Choy were plaintiffs, and the Standard Oil Company of New York the defendants, was resumed.
Mr. Slade, for the plaintiffs_replying to the arguments of the Hon. Mr. Pollock, sub- mitted that the latter in his argument and in his reliɩnoo | to enforce his argument, persistently over
on the authorities quoted looked the real terms of the contract between the parties in this case. martios
The essential
IN BANKRUptcy JurisdICTION,
BANKRUPTCY ANNULLED.
debtor and explained that the creditors had Re Li Kwong Hing, Mr. E. J. Grist, of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist, appeared for the passed a resolution to accept a composition of 30 per cent. If that were paid it was unneces- sary to have a public examination, and the bankruptcy being anualled there was sa end paid in about three weeks, examination for a fortnight, so that if he The money would be His Honour-I will adjourn the public does not pay you can go on with it.
|
to the whole matter.
Tae Official Receiver-This resolution does not bind the creditors.
His Honour-It is a question of consent, of course.
ORDER GRANTED.
C. F. Dixon, of Messrs. Hastings and Hastings Re Chan Sal Hon, debtor's petition, Mr. appeared for debtor.
You are unable to pay your liabilities in fall?--Yes.
Your assets consist of a sum of $150 which you handed to Hessrs. Hastings and Hastings?
Yes.
His Honour-That is not an available a wel (Laughter).
Mr. Dixon-Yes.
Ris Honour-It
(Laughter).
is yours, of course,
Mr. Dixon-It all goes Receiver.
to the Official
You also have a share worth abɔut 800 tsels in a goldshop in Canton ?--Yes.
You are also a partner in the Tai Chun firm in Wing Lok Street?—Yes.
worth about $10,00) ?—Yes,
You estimate your interest in that frm as
Your liabilities amount roughly to $29,000; --Yea.
His Honour-Usual order.
SECURITY RETURNED.
Sir Heary Berkeley ma le an applios'ion for the return of certain dieds lodged two years ago as security for the appearance of debtor in the Wong San Po bankraptoy.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.