130
application is bona fide, and is not meant to defeat the creditors in any way. I don't know How far you wish me to go into the case, seeing I am on y asking leave to appeal.
The Chief Justice-You must show a reason- able expectation of some sort.
Dr Ho Kai-Yes. The evidence given does not and did not warrant the decision arrived at by the learned judge in deciding that the appellant was
a partner. We got the judge's notes on Wednesday last, and that was the ground of my applying to have the application adjourned for a week. A coording to those notes your Lordships will see that no evidence was given, except that of Li Hing. pong, who termed himself the managing partner, to prove that a partnership existed.
The Chief Justice-I believe he has ab- sconded.
Th, Paisae Judge-I was told he had. Dr. Ho Kai-He absconded and left what he culled the books of the firm on the premises in charge of no one.
The Chief Justice-G've up a brief summary of what the positive and negative evidence am ›unted to.
Dr. Ho Kai-Li Hing-pong's is the only positive evi lence.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
The Puisas Judge - And the exhibits. Dr. Ho Kai-The books that were found on the premises after Li Hing-pong had run away and were afterwards used against the *ppellant. Li Hing-pong was the chief witness upon whose testimony I understand the learned judge gave his decision, together with the books he left behind. He started the | Tak Li Lung some years before a partnership was alleged to have taken place. In his evidence in chief he said the firm was started only about eighteen months or two years ago, and it was only in cross-examination that he admitted that he had been in business on his own account for a few years.
The Chief Justice-How was the business carried on?
Dr. Ho Kai-Under the same firm name. The Chief Justice-Then the other man cime in as a partner later?
Dr. Ho Kai-Just se, and on the alleged entrance of this man there was no change in the firm's name, and no advertisement which might show others that a change of partnership With or new arrangement had been arrived at. regard to the books, all the firm's account books were lost in the September typhoon, and Li Hing-pong was in possession of new books. He accounted for the loss of the old books through removing from Radecker Street in September last year to Des Voeux Road West,
From
there he removed to 250, Queen's Road West. By the registration of householders (put in) it is clearly shown that Li Hing-pong entered and took possession of 250, Queen's Road West on October 28th, 1902. This removal of shops was made by him in order to show how his old books were lost, and now there are only the new books containing everything about the alleged partnership. Certain entries in these books were referred to by Li Hing-pong to prove the appellant was a partner. One was a certain $50 he entered as wages. This has been proved by the evidence of two witnesses to have been paid to a man who tried to get business for the firm, and also to get money deposited in the firm. A second entry for $50 was stated to have been given to the wife of the appellant as
It has been shown сод wages or profit. clusively that that $50 was paid, by way of interest on money lent to Li Hing-pong by the appellant's wife. That was explained by several witnesses and the sister of the wi'e of Li Chi-chin was present when a loan of $2,500 was paid over to Li Hing-pong; the interest on that amount was also paid in her presence. There were a certain number of promissory notes given to the appellant's wife by the firm; these were afterwards changed, and the question was, who changed them? If they had not been changed they would have been conclusive evidence that the money was lent by Li Chi-chin's wife to the firm.
|
The hief Justice-Even if you get leave to appeal, I doubt if you can get leave to introduce new evidence.
The Puisne Judge-We searched for the man who changed the notes, I wanted him badly. The impression left on my mind, I may state, was that he was worth something.
|
[September 2, 1907.
His Lordship-I thought that is what you agreed to do.
Dr. Ho Kai-There was absolutely no reason why we should forge new notes in lien of the old ones. We allege that Li Hing-pong wished to Mr. Dixon-It has been taken into account destry evidence as to his borrowing from the on every occasion on arriving at a dabit or wife of the appellant. There was no witness. credit balance for the month. I think the whole called to determine the partnership.
case your Lordship will have to decide is whether The Chief Justice-Is there no evidence of the signatures on the receipts are the sigantures
of the plaintiff or not. custom?
Dr. Ho Kai-We can prove that. The Chief Justice-Is it proved yet? Dr. Ho Kai-No, I don't think it has been, During the first eighteen months the shop incurred any liabilities, and although Li Chi- obin was a man of money Li Hing-pong never consulted him about the circumstances, and knowing what he had borrowed from others he left the Colony. He was not present when the action was first heard, but on the second hearing be turned up and after that disappeared again. He left the books, and I am sure if they were examined by experts they would show-
The Chief Justice-You want to have a new trial, and to introduce a great deal of evidenoz that has not been introduced before.
Dr. Ho Kai-We have new evidence on several material points.
The Chief Justice-You want the whole thing threshed out again on different lines.
Dr. Ho Kai-No, no. Oly the material points on which it was previously impossible to get sufficient evidence.
The Chief Jus ice-Was there any appli cation for an adjournment?
Dr. Po Kai-Yes.
The Paisne Judge-There were many ad. journments until at last I refused to grant another. It was all a question of delay in my mind.
Dr. Ho Kai-I am instructed the solicitor applied for pleadings the first day he appeared. The Chief Justice-Why didn't he apply for a regular issne to be tried?
Dr. Ho Kai-Your Lordships will see the predicament of the appellant in this cas It was simply Case for $101 odd, and then
with was suddenly confronted the position of being partner in the firm, and a set of had not the slightest co.trol were produced
he
to prove that he was.
Я
book ovar which be
The Chief Justice-The man may have been a sleeping partner.
Dr. Ho Kai-There was no evidence that he was a sleeping partner.
The Paisne Judge-Yes.
The Chief Justice--I think on general principles the cass put forward for leave to appeal is not sufficient because it would reopen every cise in summary jurisdiction on similar arguments, and would destroy altogether the summary court. But what you bare jast said does seem to me to be most material, that the man has one action brought against him for a small amount and does not realise the full extent of his liabilities. It is quite possible that the man may not have got his case up quite so carefully for $30 as he would have done were a larger amount involved. Therefore you have leave to appeal.
The Paisas Judge agreed.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE MR. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE).
COMPRADORES AT VARIANCE.
So Liug-po, late compradore of the 8.8. Paul Beau, sought to recover from Ng Wai-chi, compradore to the Messageries Maritimes Co., the sum of $1.000 balance due by the defendant to the plaintiff under an agreement entered into when the plaintiff b came compradore of the Paul Beau, ander the terms of which agree- ment the defendant agreed that in consideration of plaintiff paying to him the sum of $150 a mouth for so long as he rem ined compradore of the Paul Beau, the defendant would pay to the plaintiff an amount equal to five per cent. on the gross earnings received by the plaintiff as compradore. The claim was for $1,513.10, but was reduced to $1,000 so that the action might be tried in the summary court,
Mr. C. F. Dizon (of Messrs. Hastings and Hastings) appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. R. Harding for the defendant.
His Lordship (to Mr. Dixon)-You've not paid up your $150 a month P
Mr. Dixon-We have not been asked to.
❘
مام
After hearing the evidence, his Lordship delivered judgment for defendant with costs.
Thursday, 29th August.
TWO NEW SOLICITORS ENROLLED.
Before the business of the day. Sir Henry Berkeley moved the enrolment of Messrs. Edgar Davidson and R. W. Fitzgerald dargent as solicitors of the Supreme Court. Mr. Davidson was admitted to the High Court of Judicature in England on July 6th, 1994, and Mr. Sargent on July 4th, 1907, and the papers were all in
order.
His Lordship hal much pleasure in admitting them as solicitors of this court. The way the roll here was increasing augured well for the prosperity of the profession, and he hoped it would continue to increase.
IN BANKRUPTCY.
BEFORE SIR FRANCIS PIGGOTT (CHIEF JUSTICE).
RECEIVING order GRANTED.
Re the Cheong Wing Bank. Mr. E. J. Grist (of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist) for the petitioning oreditor applied fo: a receiving order on the ground that the debtors had given notios of suspension of payment. Tre liabilities were about $69,000, and the assets $58.00, portion of which was owing in the Colony and could be recovered. About $30,000 was due in Penang, and there might be some little delay in recover. ing this.
The Official Receiver-The assets apparently exceed the liabilities, and the bank is not bankrupt.
Mr. Grist-This is one of those cases where— as often happens at home-it is in the interest of creditors to take proceelings.
His Lordship -I don't think I can take the $30,000 into consideration; of course, it will be collected if possible.
The Official Receiver-The assets exceed the liabilities.
His Lordship-Then, if you get that amount, they will pay 20/- in the £. The order is granted.
APPLICATION FOR DEBTOR'S RELEASE. The case of Chan Sni-hon was again mention. ed. Mr. C. F. Dixon (of Messrs. Hastings and Hastings) who appeared for the debtor applied for bis release from custody. The debtor me up before his Lordship on August 15th for public examination, and on that occasion the Chief Justice, under section 24 of the Bank. ruptcy Ordinance, committed him to prison. The alleged omission which the debtor made from his statement of affairs was that he did not include certain shares which it was said he had in the Wing On firm of Havana, and in the 'l'ung Yik pawnshop; also that he did not include oer- tain property which he was alleged to possess in the country. Mr. Dixon was in a position to call evidence to prove that the debtor possessed no shares in these firms, and that “Fuu Po Tong" was not the bankrupt's “tong" name. With regard to the property in the country, the speaker could produce certain title deeds show- ing that he had a little property, but that it was and had been mortgaged for more than its value for upwards of a year. This was the only omission from his s'atement of affairs, and it was not a material omission.
His Lordship-I cannot do what you ask on this motion. The evidence you are going to call must be submitted to the Official Receiver in order that he may be prepared for the cross- examination.
Mr. Dixon-But the bankrupt was sent to prison on evidence entirely sprung upon him. His Lordship-It was his own evidence.
Mr. Dixon-His own evidence absolutely denied the allegations that he had property in the country.
His Lordship-He gave evidence of such a nature that I thought there was probable cause of suspicion that he had other (property. Your
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.