Page
340
she was not to go out, A lakong was in the house waiting for her. Defendant attempted to stop plaintiff from leaving the house and she scolded him, and the lukoug joined in with her. The rings and bracelets worn by plaintiff were paid for by witness, and she told him she had pawned them for 83. After leaving plaintiff at the Registrar-General's ffice defendant return- ed home with a friend, and found that $40 had been taken out of his box, and nobody knew it was there except the plaintiff and himself.
Had you any object in swearing that informa tion ?-Ouly to recover my 840.
Mr. Grist objected. The presumption must be that the defendint was fally aware of the legal consequences, and he was not entitled to give the Court his opinion.
Mr. Smith-I merely wished to show that his motive was to bring the woman to ju tice.
His Lordship-Do you press the point? Mr. Smith-No.
After hearing further evidence, his Lordship reserved judgment.
Wednesday, November 20th.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE MR. H. H J. GOMPERTZ (ACIING PUISNE JUDGE).
CLAIM FOR MATERIAL SUPPLIED.
The Kwong Chang firm sued the Hung Shing firm to recover $286.63, balance due for work one and materials supplied Mr. R. F. C. Master (of Messrs. Johnson, Stoke and Master) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Otto Kong Sing for the defendant.
Mr. Master informed the Court that the plaintiffs were a firm of moulders and had had dealings for some considerable time with the defendants, and kep araoning account which he believed was rendered monthly. He had agreed with Mr. Kong sing not to go into the running account, and the case was now confined to the fact as to whether or not $100 had been paid off the claim, and also whether the sum of $60 should be allowed by the defendants to the plaintiffs for mon ds supplied to them in order to enable them to carry out orders for the defendant firm. The defendants had paid the balance after deducting those two sums-$126.63 -into Court, but the plaintiffs had not accepted it.
After hearing the evidence his Lordship gave judgment for the plaintiffs for the amonut paid into Court, and custe up to the date of payment in. He also allowed the defe dauts costs from the date of payment in.
A PARTNERSHIP DISPUTE.
Action was brought by Tsip Kea against the Tai Ping theatre, Cheong Kee and the partners to recover the sum of $1000, money lent on November 24th.
Mr. R. A. Harding appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. A. Jackson (of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master) for the defendant Ye Ying-wo, one of the alleged partners.
Mr. Harding-As regards the delt of the firm there is no dispute.
Mr. Jackson - But I deny the partnership on behalf of Ye Ying-wo.
Mr. Harding- The only dis, ute ia as regards Mr. Jackson's client. He and Ye Yuk-shang are sued as partners in the firm.
His Lordship-Then it is practically a case of disputed partnership?
Mr. Jackson-At the same time my friend should give formal evidence about the $1000.
Mr. Harding-I have a promissory note about that.
His Lordship-Is Yo Yuk-shang here? Mr. Harding-No, my Lord.
Mr. Jackson-He's bolted, I think. Mr. Harding stated that at the time of the loan of $1000, what was taken as a promissory note was chopped by the defondant firm on receipt of the money. In effect, according to decisions of the Court, it would not be strictly a promissory note, therefore they sued for money lent. In August 1906 the defendants started this theatre, and it was n oes-ary on the granting of th- licence to obtain á surely. The plaintiff was approached by the defendants to become surely, and did. Subsequently the theatre did not pay, 18 the capital with which they started
WS not sufficient. Then
this loan they applied for
from
1
the
❘
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
not
plaintiff which he advanced on the acknowledg; meat before the Court. Mr. Harding would prove that the defendant who represented was a parter, and the only question was whether Ye Ying-wo was one. He would prove by the managing partner of the theatre that Ye Ying-wo applied for a $200 share; that he paid the $200 and received scrip for his ahare; and that as a partner in the firm he be came entitled to free admiss on in the theatre, and received one of the permanent tickets of admission which were issued to partners. He also examined the books of the business from time to time, and was present when the firm first started and the plaintiff became surety. He was also present at a subsequent meeting of creditors when the firm became insolvent and arrangements were made to cease business,
Evidence was called, and the bearing adjourned.
Thursday, November 21st.
IN BANKRUPTCY,
BEFORE MR. A. G. W18E (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE).
RECEIVING ORDER GRANTED.
Re Leung Tang. This application for a receiving order, adjourned from last week owing to the solicitor for the plaintiffs in an action brought by the Russo Chinese Bink against Leung Tang not being served, was again heard. Mr. R. A. Harding appeared for the applicant, and Mr. Daniel (of Masre. Johnson, Stokes and Master) represented the Russo-Chinese
Bank.
Mr. Harding pointed out that debtor's lia bilities were $3, 70, in addition to a disputed debt claim made in connection with the sbsconder from the Russo-Chinese bank, and that amount was subject to whatever would be recovered from the absconder.
His Lordship-A very small contribution, I expet.
Mr. Harding-I understand he has assets here, and an action has already been commenced against him. Whatever 18 obtained will necessarily reduce the amount of the claim.
His Lordship-It cannot reduce it by much. Mr. Harding-I understand there are sub. stantial assets.
Mr. Daniel-That is a statement by my friend only.
Mr. Harding-Mr. Daniel, has no locus standi and cannot be heard.
His Lordship-I asked for bis attendance and will certainly hear him.
Mr. Daniel-I am instrrcted by the bank to oppose the rereiving ord r. On the debtor's declarat on he admits the debt, but according to his solicitor be does not, and if that is so he is not insolvent. I asked Mr. Harding if he would consent to judgment, but be declined unless we would agree to the bankruptey and we refused to do that.
His Lordship-Can you show me any grounds for refusing the order?
Mr. Daniel- l'he debt claim by the bank must be admitted or he is not insolvent. My friend has just said it is a disputed claim.
His Lordship-He has admitted it, Mr. Harding-I cannot get away from this document.
>
Mr. Daniel-I would ask your Lordship to refuse the application or djourn it for a week. We have instructed Counsel (Mr. Slade) but be is ill.
His Lordship-1 adjourned it last week for this very purpose, but I osuno: again adjours. The order is granted.
ANOTHER RECEIVING ORDER.
Mr. F. X. d'Almada e Castro applied on behalf of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist for a receiving order in the cas- of Shui Hang-fs-ung ex parte Lux H kohan. The assets were $ 400 worth of stock and $7000, debts, while the liabilities totalled $15,670. The order Was granted.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION,
BEFORE MR, H. H. J. GOMERTZ ( CTING I'VISNE JUDGE).
SEQUEL TO A PIRACY,
Ip Toung-nin brought action ag inst Kwong Tse-king claiming the delivery up of a junk
|
|
(November 25, 1907.
$1000 dam ges. Mr. F. B. L. Bowley (of now lying at Shaukiwan, or in the alternative
plaintiff, and Mr. E. J. Grist (of Messrs. Messrs. Dennys and Bowley) appeared for the
Wilkinson and Grist) for the defendant.
to be
were
The
Mr. Bowley said the plaintiff in the notion was a salt fish dealer who had carried on business for a long time at a place called Chak Po in the district of Yangkong, a coastal distriot b- - tween Macao and the island of Hainan. Plain- tiff had carried on business on his own account at this place for some six years. He owned two fiebing junks which went out on the high seas to catch fish and return with them for him to sell. Six years ago he built the junk now in question, on which he employed a steers- man and seven fi-hermen. Plaintiff also owned a similar junk, which he parchas d. Both these junks, n accordance with Chia-se custom, bore the same name. On August these two jauks set out on a fishing expedition in the afterno00. They sailed all night with fine weather and a light breeze. At about three o'clock on the following morning the ste reman of the junk in question was awakened by a noise. He observed a boat lying alonside his junk, heard the Bring of guns, and saw a number of strangers aboard his own craft. These pirates, who armed with swords and firearms, immediately overawed the crew, forced them down into the hold and put down the hitch cover with a weight on top. Then they took possession of the junk and sailed her away. The steer mN LA part of three days, food and water being and crew were kept under hatolles for the bist handed down to them by the pirates piracy cooarred on the 18th, and on the even- pirates, and the steersman and crew put ashore ing of the 20th the junk was anchored by the at what appeared
an aninhabited sailed away the junk and their own boat, part bear Sunning. After this the pirates It took the steersman and crew eight days to get back to Chak Po, and they had to beg food at the different villages they passed, On had returned and reported the piracy to the arrival there they found that the consort juok plaintiff, who reported the matter to the Chines Authorities and then tarted off with the steersman to hunt for the stolen junk. He went to Kongmoon and Macao. At te latter port he received certain information which led him to come to Hongkong where he found his junk at anchor in Shaukiwan barbour. He reported the matter to the Hongkoug Police, they informed the Govern- ment and the Government reported the occurrence to the Chinese Authorities in order that the pirates might be searched for and prosecuted. An inspector of police seized the juok at Shaukiwan, and found it was claimed by the defendent, who produced a bill of sale for it. Plaintiff then applied for the return of the junk, which was refused, hence the cause of action. According to the Common Law of England, which was in foros in Hong- prived of it except by lawful means, kong, the owner of property soult not be de
If he Tound it in possession of a third party he was entitled by law to seize it and take possession. But the plaintiff did not exeroias his right of recapture in this case because it might have led to a breach of the peace.
The case was adjourned.
Friday, November 22ud.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE MR. A. G. W188 (¿oting CHIEF
JUSTICE.)
In the matter of Iu Kai-shing alias Iu Chan, and in the matter of the Chinese Extradition Ordinance, 1889.
His Lordship delivered his decision in the
structed by Mr. Otto Kong Sing, applied for case wherein ir Heary Berkeley, K.C., in- a writ of Labens coʻpus, the granting of which was opposed by the Atorney-General who was instructed by Mr. G. E. Morr 11, from the office of the Crown Solicitor.
His Lordship said-The Chinese Government applied for the extradition of one In Kai Shing, alias In Chao, (hereinafter referred to as the acoused) on a charge of armed robbery within the jurisdiction of Chios. In due course he was brought before the Magistrals, and after
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.