200
SUPREME COURT.
Wednesday, 16th September.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
PUISNE JUDGB).
LANDLORD AND TENANT.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
'Any other tenants suffer damage to their property ? Yes. A lady had all her sitting- room furniture damaged. I am told over 5,000 blankets belonging to the Army Urdin- anoe were destroyed.
As a matter of fact this is only a test case ?- I am going entirely on my own responsibility. If you succeel the other tenants will send in
BEFORE ME. H. H. J. GOMPERTZ (ACTING their claims ?-I don't know.
Plaintiff's "coolia" also gave evidence in support of his case.
For the defence, Mr. E. Seth, secretary of the company, said the house in question was only eighteen months old. Beyond the notice he had received on the 21st August, he had got no other. The company had no reason to sup. pose that the house needed repairs. When be received the notice be weat over to Mr. Goldring's house, examined the damage, and returned to the office and reported it. On the following Saturday, accompanied by Mr. Bird, be examined the roof but could find nothing wrong.
P. W. Goldring, solicitor, claimed the sum of $500 damages from the Humphreys Estate and Finance Company, Limited, for breach of contract. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant firm failed to comply with an agreement whereby they undertook to keep the roof and exterior walls of the premises he occupied at Kowloon in a proper state of repair.
Mr. E. J. Grist, of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist, appeared for the plaintiff, while Mr. P. M. Hodgson, of Messrs. Ewens and Harston, acted on behalf of the defendants. Mr. Grist stated that Mr. Goldring bad rented from the defendant firm a floor in one of their buildings at Kowloon, Only the flat in which plaintiff lived was let to him but not the roof which was the property of the landlord, whose duty it was to keep it in proper condition for the use of the tenants. On the 28th July last there was a typhoon in Hongkong. Eight or ten days later there was a beavy rainstorm, which caused water to accumulate on that portion of the roof above plaintiff's floor. The water came through and damaged a considerable portion of his pro perty A carpet was spoilt, also a gramaphone and a number of records.
His Lordship-Supposing the typhoon took the roof right off, would you still have a remedy?
Mr. Grist-I don't think so. Did you give notice to the defendants to repair the roof ?-No.
Was the roof damaged by the typhoon -I can't say that. All the pipes were choked with leaves which must have been blown on to the roof by the typhoon, causing the accumulation of water. We do not put the damage down to the typhoon. The defendants are under an obligation to keep the roof in good condition, and as there had been a typhoon it was their duty to see whether any repairs were necessary. His Lordship-You do not say whether it is due to the typhoon or not?
Mr Grist-We say defendants should have in- spected the roof after the typhoon. We could not get on the roof, which was not let to us, and we would be trespassers if we went there.
His Lordship-Yes, you wouldbe · Plaintiff then entered the witness box anl related the facts as outlined by Mr. Grist. On the morning after the rain storm the water entered his sitting room in terrents. There were about three inches of water on the floor. Under oross-examination he admitted that the roof was very good.
All the damage you speak of occurred nearly a month after the typhoon ?-Yes,
You don't suggest that this damage was done by the typhoon P-No. But there were heavy rains in August.
It is quite possible that on the night of the 20th August during the rain leaves and rubbish were blown to your roof from the other roofs - I don't think so.
Why not?-I think it was a gradual choking of the drain.
Next morning did you know the pipes were choked ?-How could I know ?
Did not the defendants, after receiving your letter, go at once to clear the pipes ?-I don't know if they did or not.
You have said that you had no means of as- pertaining if the pipes were choked? How do you suppose the defendants would know -I understand they can do so from the end house.
How many gramaphone records have you ?— Two hundred.
How long have you had them P-Twenty-five of them less than six months.
Was the gramaphone damaged P-The legs came off.
As a matter of fact your loss is purely a sentimental one ?- No, I am not worrying so much about the money; I am bringing this section on principle.
Cross-examined: The company had pre- viously paid compensation to other tenants for damage done, but in those cases notice had been given and the damage repaired. The compensa- tion paid was $50.
This closed the case for the defence.
Mr. Hodgson submitted that it was necesary for the tenant to give notice to the landlord of any repair that was needed. The case was important to all landlords in the colony.
His Lordship-It is also important to tenants. Mr. Hodgson contended that the roof was let to the tenant and if the landlord went on the roof it was trespass.
His Lordship-I think it would be going rather far to say the landlord would be a tres- passer if he went on the roof of his own bouse. I don't know that he ought to go there, but I don't think he could be legally prevented.
Mr. Hodgson added that landlords could not be expected to keep a staff of inspectors to in- pact roofs every day, and see if pip-s were choked.
His Lordship-The plaintiff's case is thie: If a landlord in this colony lets properly he is an insurer against damage caused by weather. Mr. Grist-I don't go quite so far as that. His Lordship-Fretty near it. Mr. Grist-I say that in view of the cir- cunstances of the typhoon he was negligent in not going and seeing to the roof,
Mr. Hodgson submitted that as there was no structural defect alleged this clause did not apply to damage caused by a phoked drain. Mr. Grist having replied, bis Lordship said that as both sides considered the case one of importance he would reserve his decision.
Thursday, 17th September.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE ME. H. H. J. GOMPEETZ (ACTING PUIENE JUDOE).
THE FATE OF A CAMERA.
W. L. Weaser, architect and surveyor, brought an acion against Long Hing and Company, photographic dealers, 17 Queen's Road Central, for the return of a camera, or in the alternative $90 the value thereof. Gardiner, from the office of M-sers. Bratton and Hett, appeared for the plaintiff, and the defend Messrs Goldring. Barlow and Morrel!. ant company was represented by Mr. Morrell, of
Mr.
Mr. Morrell said plaintiff bad not made out his case. There had been no suggestion of
could recover neglect, and neglect must be proved before he a bailment of this kind, defendants not receiving any reward for warehousing the camera- It was simply a deposit. Plaintiff wanted to impose on defend ants the duty of looking after any camera which he liked to leave. His clients said they handed back the camera to Mr. Goldsmith and they did
not know Mr. Wesser in the matter at all.
The hearing was adjourned until Wednesday,
ACTION AGAINST A CINEMATOGRAPH
1 PROPRIETOR.
Fang Ya brought an action against Angust being wages due at the rate of $30 a month Danfresne, cinematograph proprietor, for $150, since April 1st. to 31st August. Mr. O. D. Thomson appeared for the plaintiff and defend. ant was represented by Mr. Otto Kong Bing.
|
|
[September 19, 1908.
Charles Nagent sued the same defendant for $1.987.18 money advanced to and paid on behalf of the defendant, the claim being reduced to $1000 to bring it within the jurisdiction of the court. Mr. O. D. Thomson appeared for plaintiff, and defendant was represented by Mr. Otto Kong -ing,
Both cases were adjourned.
Friday, 18th September.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION,
BEFORE ME. H. H. J. Gompertz
(ACTING PUISNE JUDGE).
THE CUSTOM OF THE PORT. His Lordship delivered judgment in the action in which William Barker and Co. sued the China Express Co., the claim being for the delivery of 10 bags of fire bricks ex the steamer "Indiana" the property of the plaintiffs, which was wrongfully detained by the defendants, or, in the alternative, the value of such bricks, $120. Mr. G. E. Morrell (of Messrs. Goldring, Barlow and Morrell) appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. P. Sydenham Dixon (of Mr. R. A. Harding's office) for the defendants.
His Lordship said-I bave taken time to consider my decision in this case, and am delivering a written judgment because, although the actual amount involved is only the small sum of $12.50, the question I have to decide is as to the right of forwarding agents to collect fees from consignees in the colony.
The facts of the case are shortly as follows: The plaintiff who trades in Hongkong as William Barker and Company, sent an order on 28th April last to a firm-the Hawley Down Draft Furnace Company-for the fire bricks. The Cases of supply of ten vendor delivered the goods to the firm of A. H. Post and Company, freight contractors of New York, and received from them the document which is entitled a through bill of lading, and which is in effect a receipt for the This goods and a contract for carriage.
"A H. Post and signed document was Company" as forwarders, was endorsed in blank by the Hawley Down Company and sent by them to plaintiff, with a bill for the price, which was accepted by the plaintiff. This through bill of lading contained a notion that application for delivery must be made to the Chios Express Company, Hongkong. On 20th August the defendants, the China Express Company, received a bill of lading comprising these and other goods signed by the New York agents for the U. S. and China and Japan Steamship Line, and endorsed in blank by A. H. Post and Company. Од
of receipt
these doou. m-nis the defendant company sent to the plaintiff an invoice claiming $17.50 for their obarges in addition to the sum due to Post and Company for freight. Now it appears that the plaintiff had previously not.fied the defendant company that he would pay no charges to them and that he desired them not to handle any goods which might arrive consigned to him. te returned the invoice stating that he had already desired the defendant company not to handle hs goods and he refused to pay the defendant's charges. He then received from
the defeadanta another invoice dated 25th August claiming $12,50 for charges, and a letter of advice with an endorsement asking if he re- fused the cargo and stating that a special landing could not be arranged unless they had previous notice. Some correspondence followed and on August 22nd the plaintif went to the office of the defendant company and tendered the amount of freight claimed by Post and Company, but defendants refused to accept it or to give a delivery order unless their charges were also paid. On August 26th defendants removed the goods from the Kowloon Godowns to their own premises in Hongkong, and defendants' manager, Mr. Hickie, explains that he did this for con. venience as he was morir other goods which had come under the same bill of lading and it was cheaper to move them together. Finally, as defendants could not give a delivery order in return for the freight, except on payment of their charges of $1250 appears
!
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.