Page
120
To Mr. Goldring-The question of compen. sation was not raised as far as he was aware until plaintiff was about to leave and the committee decided not to give him anything.
The Paisne Judge said there was no doubt that plaintiff intended to take possession of his room at the outset, the only question being whether he relinquished the room with or without compensation. The point was never officially raised until plaintiff was about to leave, and, in the opinion of the Paisns Judge, plain- tiff bad waived his right to compensation.
Judgement would, therefore, b's for the defend- ants, with costs.
Wednesday, 21st August.
IN APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
BEFORE THE FULL COURT.
LEAVE TO APPEAL.
The Hon. Dr. Ho Kai, instructed by Mr. Gardiner, moved for leave to appeal to the Full Court from the judgment of His Honour the Paisae Judge of the 15th instant in which he decided that Lai Chi-obin was a partner in the Tak Li Lung firm. In reply to the Chief Justice he suggested that as there was not time that morning to discuss the merita of the application that it stand over till the end of October.
The Chief Justice said the only condition could be that security be given and that the appeal.come on in seven days,
The Court decided to hear the application next Wednesday.
The Chief Justice-Security must be given. The Paisne Judge-Security in all three suite, for the amount of the judgment debt and the taxed costs. I have just given three judg- ments against him this morning.
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION,
BEFORE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (SIR Francis FIGGOTT).
A PECULIAR CASE,
Lam Hing, indicted on two counts of robbery with violence in the New Territory last August, pleaded not guilty, and the following jury was empanelled: Messrs. L. V. Langstein, B. R. Owholt, E. L. Hughes, E. Shaw, J. Manners, Jas, Young and E. W. White.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
a
declaration to be filed of the liabilities, of the debtor. His Lordship would find that a declaration had been filed 'showing that the liabilities amonated to 845,000 or there abouts.
The petitioning creditor appeared and stated that the debtor had told him some months ago that his liabilities smounted to $45,000.
The Chief Justice remarked that the first questions a solicitor ought to ask were as to the liabilities and the assets. He continued-It must be understood that bankraptoy is not a means to get payment for a debt. The way to get payment of a debt is by judgment and not by bankruptcy.
Application adjourned.
ANOTHER TYPHOON VICTIM.
The adjourned case of Pang Sui Fang came up.
The Official Receiver-This is the case where the man said at first he was a partner and afterwards said he was not.
The Chief Justice-I remember.
The Official Receiver (to debtor)-You gave the name of the two partners last time ?—Yes.
Did they ever take any active part in the management of the business? --No.
Who managed the business?-I did. You acted as a partner P-I did. Did people think you were a partner ?—Yes. Has the firm ever made any money ?-It has It has been in existence three or four years? -It has,
Have the partners ever drawn anything from the firm ?—No, but they have drawn interests on the capital once.
You drew $12 a month as wages?—Yes. Did you draw anything else P-No.
To what do you attribute your failure ?—❘ Owing to the debts not paid to us and to the loss which we incurred by the typhoon of several thousands of dollars.
The Chief Justice-What did you loss?—A cargo boat,
The Official Receiver- He is a coal merchant. He admits he is a partner.
Adjudication order granted,
THE EFFECT OF AN ADVERSE JUDGMENT.
Re Kwok Pui Chi debtor's petition Mr. Grist, on his behalf, stated that the liabilities amounted to $9,000 and the assets to $6,000, He referred his Lordship to a certain judgment. The Chief Justice--That judgment is only for 8200 Surely his is not going into bank- ruptcy for that?
Mr. Grist-He cannot meet his other liabilities, my Lord. The other assets will take some time to realise.
Receiving order granted.
YARN DE LER'S FAILURE. Re Fan Wa Shan, adjourned application. The Official Receiver said he had finished.
The Attorney-General, in outlining the case for the prosecution, stated that the prosecutor was a farmer living at Taipingshan. At ten o'clock on the day in question he beard a knock at bis door and on opening it was confronted by a number of men who seized him and dragged him into the house. The prosecutor knew the prisoner and he Was the only
Mr. Looker, representing a number of credi one
of his assailants whom he recognistors, said that when the debtor was last before ed. They searched the house and find the Court the case was adjourned in order ing nothing of value went to the house next that he might supply certain information door occupied by the daughter of the farmer, from his books, which the creditors desired. dragging him with them. They searched this To a certain extent that had been done, but house and succeeded in getting $76, the money apparently he had not paid close attention to the of the proseontor. This they took and went questions, as the answers did not altogether off. Next day prisoner was recognised by a give the information that was desired. grocer in another village. His clothes were muddy, a condition which corresponded with the reported affairs. Next day the prosecutor made a report to the police who, noticed that he had blood marks on his head and face, showing he had been assaulted. When the prisoner was ar- rested, both the grocer and the farmer identified him among a dozen men. A curious feature of the case was that, though both the farmer and the grocer saw this man after the affair, they did not give him up to the police and procee 1- inga were taken only this month.
After hearing the evidence, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty and the prisoner was discharged.
Thursday, August 22nd.
IN BANKRUPTCY JURISDICTION,
Before the CHIEF JUSTICE (SIE FRANCIS PIGGOTT).
INFORMATION WARTED,
Re Au Ka Po, creditors' petition, Mr. R. Harding said that his Lordship would remember that the case had been adjourned for
Mr. Looker (to debtor)—Was the statement which your solicitors furnished as to the course of your business made out by you or with your knowledge ?—The accountant made it out.
Is it a correct statement ?—It is s true statement.
The yarn which you purchased from the yarn importers you bought for the purpose of re- selling to country dealers ?-Sometimes my customers told me to make a purchase.
Attend to the question.-It was generally when my customers told me to buy.
You bought it to re-sell?-I want to know if you did not buy this yarn for the purpose of reselling to Chinese deaters ?—Yes.
And unless these country customers paid for the yarn, you could not yourself py for it P-That is sʊ.
Was there a demand among the country customers for a certain quantity of yarn ?— They required some every year.
In anticipation of these requirements you used to enter into large contracts with importers for the purchase of yarn ?—No. When the customers told me to buy, I bought.
You entered into contracts only when the customers requested you to buy?—As a rule I
|
|
[August 24, 1907.
bought very little without my customers requesting me to buy,
Your customers didn't give you orders för any particular amount? They simply told you to bay a good deal because they wanted it They told me to be ready as they wished to buy, hey did not stato quantities? —Approxim- ately they did.
What did they say?-The on-tomers would say approximately the amount they wanted to purchase, say 500 bales.
And you would buy 500 bales ?—Yes.
They used to take delivery in small quantities of three or four bales at a time ?-Sometimes more, sometimes less. I could not say exactly.
You can say perfectly well ?—They took little by little.
And as a customer came and wanted his few bales of yarn you went and got it from the people you bought it from Yes.
You did not take delivery of it until the customer came along and asked for a few bales?
Yes.
In the beginning of January 1906 the price of yarn fell P-The price went down as far as I remember in the first and second moon of last
year.
It continued to go own?-There was small fall.
On the 24th of January you had still to take delivery of and pay for 41,537 bales ?—I hat is right.
"Of that amount 23,444 bales had not been resold ?—The customers said they required it.
Will you answer the question, please?
-Yes. (Question repeated)-The o stomers bad told me to buy for them.
Will you tell me whether that amount had been resold ?-It had not been resold.
Between the 24th of January and the 15th May the price of yarn fell considerably ?—Only a dollar or so.
Had it not fallen from $10 to $15 by the 15th May -- I don't consider it fell so much.
Come now.
You were one of the largest yarn dealers and must have known the state of the market. Didn't the market prices fall in the time mentioned from $10 to $15 P-Not on the sales that I made to customers.
Was the price at which you could buy yarn on the 15th May the same as on the 25th January ?—It had fallen two or three dollars,
After further questions put with a view to show that the decline of the market was greater than admitted by debtor,
The Chief Justice asked-How much did you expect to lose on the stuff you did not take delivery of ?— Between $30,000 and $40, 00. Mr. Looker-How many bales were there ?- 37,000 bales on May 15th.
You could not resell them except at a heavy loss ?—I did not need to lose on it.
The Chief Justice-Answer the question, whether you would have lost at the market price then I would lose some,
How much ?-Only a few tens of thousands I think.
Think a little closer; how much ?—$90,000 OK. $50,00.
Mr. Locker-That is enough for my purpose. (To debtor)-The reason you could not sell- was that the purchaser found he could buy yarn cheaper than at the price you paid for It?—I don't know.
You know perfectly well? - I don't. Between the 15th May and the 17th August yon bought another 55,258 bales ?—Yes.
Of that amount 26,420 bales had not been resold ?—Yes, the customers gave directions for it to be ready for them.
According to your statement 26,430 bales had not been resold; is that correct P—Yes.
On August 17th you had to take delivery of 51,753 bales which had not been resold ?--ID- oluded in that amount is the amount the e stomers had not booked.
Mr. Looker submitted to his Lordship that the debtor had contracted debts without having any proof that he would be able to pay them, and knowing that } e was insolvent at the time, his Lordship should cause him to be arrested.
The Chief Justics replied that the question turned on whether in view of the promises to purchase that the debtor had that he really had no proof of his inability to pay.
Mr. Looker proceeded to show that on May 15th debtor entered into a contract for ́over three millions dollars and a few months
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.