160
The key. Mr PEARCE expressed their thanks to the management of the City Hall, and the meeting closed with the sinngig of the 100th Psalm.
SUPREME COURT.
Friday, September 6th.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
week's adjournment and his mother was not dead then.
Mr. Dixon-I applied for that adjournment as I'd only then been instructed.
no
Plaintiff then gave evidence of the debt. Ia cross-examination he stated that the money was lent in the second moon, and promissory note was made out. He asked for the money in the fifth moon, but as plaintiff could not pay he gave him a promissory note,
His Lord-bip-There is no endorsement on the promissory note, and the balance has not BEFORE MB. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE). been paid into Court. $130 is admitted so far.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
MANY ACTIONS.
No fewer than 26 actions were set down in the list against the Tak Lee Leung, aggregating $14,777.89. Seven judgments have already been given against the firm amounting in all to $6,743.97. It will be remembered that the Puisue Judge recently decided that Li Chi Chin was a partner in the firm, and against that decisi n an appeal is being made to the Full Court.
Mr. Gardiner, who appeared for Li Chi Chin, asked that all the cases be adjourned sine die upon his client giving security for the amount of the claims.
His Honour-And the costs? Mr. Gardiner - Yes.
His Honour-Will you give an undertaking that, in the event of the appeal going against him, he will consent to judgment?
Mr. Gardiner-No. It may be that some of the cases are bogus. We would like a chance of fighting.
His Honour-I am not going to hear the 26 cases. They are all promissory notes.
Mr. Gardiner It is a question whether the money was lent to the firm or to Lai Hing Pong, the other partner.
His Honour-All right. Monday morning, one after the other.
Monday, September 9tb.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION,
BEFORE MR. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE).
LI CHI CHIN'S AFFAIRS.
Mr. Dixon-We admit owing $130, but have not paid anything into Court,
Ng Fai, a clerk in the Naval Yard, said he and defendant on July 11th. Plaintiff asked was present at an interview between plaintiff defendant to repay him $500, saying his brother wanted the money for urgent business in Macao. Defendant hd only $370, but paid plaintiff this amount. He ask-d plaintiff for a receipt, but none was given as the plaintiff was in a hurry to go to Macao.
Mr. Dixon again asked for an adjournment until the defendant's return, when he would corroborate the evidence of the last witness. Mr. Dixon would also call a woman who would say she heard the plaintiff ask the defendant for the balance of $130 dus.
her mother too?
His Lordsbip--Where has she gone, to see
Mr. Dixon-I was unable to get her to-day. His Lordship-I cannot grant an adjourn- ment unless you put up secarity.
Mr. Dixon-But considering the fact that he has left n account of a death.
His Lordship-You've stated so; there is no evidence that he has.
Mr. Dixon-There is no reason to suppose that he has go e away to avoid this action.
His Lordship-Can't you pay up what you owe?
(September 16, 1907.
strong olauses against the shiper should be made null and void. In the first place we contend that this act is applicable in this case because the contract was made in New South Wales, and the authorities are very clear on a point of prima facie law which governs such a
case.
After evidence had been given as to the arrival of the flour, and the inspection of the damaged bags,
Mr. Bailey said that if the plaintiffs contended that the Sea Carriage of Goods Act of the Commonwealth obliterated all the exceptions on the bill of lading, the defendant Company might as well have no bill of lading at The contract in the bill of lading | all."
order was that the Company should ship in good and condition, subject to certain exceptions. He submitted that when plaintiffs got the goods they behaved in a very extra- ordinary way. First they refused to take delivery of 51 bigs, then they asked to take delivery of the undamaged ones. Eren if the plaintiffs had a case they had to prove that the goods were shipped in good order and condition; they would have to show how the damage was done, and they would have to prove that it was done by the defendants.
His Lordship held that no negligence had been proved, and entered judgment for the defendants with costs.
Wednesday, 11th September.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION,
BEFORE MR. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGB).
"A NOTORIOUS LITIGANT," Chau Shum sued Chan Kin to recover the sum of $18), being principal and interest dua on money leat on eplember 19th, 19 5. Mr. P. W. Goldring (of Messrs. Goldring and Mr. Dixon-We're not in a position to.
Barlow) appeared for the plaintiff, while the His Lordship gave judgment and costs for the defendant appeared in person. plaintiff.
Tuesday, September 10th.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
The twenty-six actions against Li Chi-chio, BBFORE MR. A. G. WISH (PUISNE JUDGE) as a partner in the Tak Li Lung firm, were taken before his Honour the Paisne Judge yesterday. The total amount claimed Was $14.777.90.
Mr. J. W. Gardiner (of Messis. Brutton and Hett) ppeared for the defendant, while the plaintiffs were represented by Messrs. R. A. Harding, F. X. d'Almada e Castro and R. Harding.
Mr. Gardiner asked his Lordship if he would consider an application to adjourn the cases pending the appeal.
His Lordship Not unless the other parties
consent.
Mr. Gardiner - If your Lordship gives judgment against the defendant as a partner in the firm and the appeal succeeds there will be no chance of recovering costs in these cases.
His Lordship-The twenty-six of them won't run away for the sake of $25 apiece. Supposing you win you get costa on the appeal. You have accepted service for the defendant as a partner in the Tak Li Lung firm
Mr. Gardiner-Yes, my Lord. Mr. B. A. Harding-What is his locus standi if he is not a partner?
Mr. Gardiner—I admit I am Lordship has made the order.
so far as your
The claims were taken separately, and after hearing each case his Lordship entered judg. ment for plaintiffs and costs, but granted a stay of execution pending the appes!,
CLAIM FOR MONEY LENT.
Action was brought by Lau Wai-oho against Chan Shin-hin to recover $510, principal and inter st due on money lent. Mr. E. J. Grist (of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist) appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. C. F. Dixon (of Messrs. Hastings and Hastings) for the defendant.
Mr. Dizon applied for an adjournment. The defendant got a message to go to the country, as his mother was dead, They alleged that payments had been made on account of the debt.
defendant have
L
Mr. Grist-Why didn't the the case tried a week ago?
He asked for a
A SHIPPER'S CLAIM.
Dang Chee, Son and Co. sued the owners of the s.s. Aldenham to recover the sum of $103,
difference being the
between the amount received at auction on 48 bags of four and plaintiffs' costs on same. Mr. P. W. Goldring (of Messrs. Goldring and Barlow) appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. H. G. C. Bailey (of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and alaster) for defendants.
Mr. Goldring said the action was not for a large sum of money, but his clients wished to fight it on principle, and on the facts he would set forth he contended that the shipowners should be liable for these danaged bags of flour. The goods in question were shipped in defendants' ship from Sydney on May 15th, and in the ordinary course a bill of lading was issued. When the goods were received here, and the consignees sent a purchaser on board the ship, it was found that 1 bags of the flour were damaged. The plaintiffs contended, in view of the terms of the bill of lading, that the goods were damaged through the negligence of the shipowners. They were inspected by Mr. G. P. Lammert on behalf of the plaintiffs, and and by Mr. Douglas on behalf of the defend- ants. Mr. Lammert's report showed that 48 bags were damaged, óroken and rasewn. Mr. Goldring would be able to show that this was the first time shipowners had ever refused to make good damage for broken bags of flour. 'There was an act in the Commonwealth of Australia known as the Sea Carriage of Goods: Aot, and that act rendered null and void all clauses which were commonly inserted in bills of lading in Australia, and which attempted to relieve the master or shipowners from negligence. As his Lordship know, the ordinary bill of lading, as a rule, relieved the shipowner from any liability whatever.
His Lordship-It will in time.
to
Mr. Goldring-Yes, and the Commonwealth of Australia have passed this —which seems be a very reasonable not—in a rder that all those
|
Plaintiff said he was a trader at 48, Central Market. He lent the defendant $200 for which he received a signed document. The loan was to bear inferest at the rate of two per cent, per montb. Witness received $3) on account of principal and $20 on account of interest on March 16th, 1996, and on July 7th of the sam› year he received 845 on account of principal and $30 on account of interest.
say?
His Lordship-What has the defendant to
Defendant--That is what the plaintiff says but I have something to say if your Lordship
will allow me.
His Lordship-That's all right. Do you want to ask the p'aintiff any questions?
Defendant-Yes. (To plaintiff)-In Novem- ber 1905 was I not a partner with you in a pork basiness at 61, Yaumati ?—No,
Was
I on prove this by other partners, not Chau Wo a partner, and did we not put in a capital of 8500 altogether?--No.
Did not the Registrar-General take back our licence in May last year ?—I don't know.
Mr. Goldring-1f your Lordship recollects, this man previously admitted owing a certain amount
Mis Lordship (to defendant)-What do you owe altogether?—₹69.80.
And why haven't you paid him before?-H, did not ask me for it.
BBYS
He he has?-I don't know about it. Did you borrow $200 from him once?-Yet, but I paid $50, and that left $150 for interest to
ran on.
Did you sign the note produced ?—Yes.
Well, how are you going to get behind it now? I have something more to tell your L rdship. Iowed him money and he took over my business for $61.
I don't care what he did: did you sign that document?—I did.
Very well, kindly tell me why you don't pay up-- [ separated-
Have you receipts for
Never mind that. any payments ?— Y es.
Defendant here produced a paper which he said he received on his last payment, and re- marked that plaintiff said he was willing to reduce principal and interest.
His Lordship-That is not a receipt?--It is a stamped document.
What is it for ?—$58,
3
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.