September 19, 1908.]
as to 85 their agency and as to $7.50 the cost of bringing the goods over from Kowloon). The plaintiff brought this sation for the de- livery up of the goods or their value and he asks for the expenses of transferring them back to Kowloon where he required them. Now this being an action of detinue the first question to consider is whether the plaintiff has the pro- perty in the goods he claims and a right to possession.
may
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
defendants,
represents the office expenses and commission charged by the New York forwarders. Now ling to pay and did in fact tonder to the this amount the plaintiff was perfectly wil
liability must be limited to this amount and he He says, however, that his objects to being charged anything farther by the defendants with whom, as he rightly says, he has no contract and to whom he had the property has not passed to him he previously given notice that he wished to have cannot of course claim the goods themselves, might, I suppose, have put the goods on board nothing to do with them. Now the vendors though if they are wrongfully withheld be themselves, charging the plaintiff their costs of
have an action ou the contract for damages against his vendor.
so doing as part of the price and drawn on him It was urged for that amount. They would then have sent for the defendant that the property had never passed to the pleintiff; that the China
him the ship's bill of lading direct and he would Express Company, as consignees of the bill
have been given delivery on payment of of lading, hal the jus disponendi vested in
freight. They have not done them, and furthermore, that where a bill of It would have been necessary themselves to 30, and apparently for several reasons. lading is taken to the vendors it is decisive of his intention to reserve the jus disponendi and cartage. Very possibly they did not care to arrange and pay for the inland freight and prevent the property passing to the vendee. Inndertake business of this sort; it is quite do not think that I can dispose very shortly of probable that they have not the necessary staff. this argument. The question of the passing of Then again it appears that they had several property has to be decided on the whole facts of parcels of goods for China and it is suggested the case, and I have no doubt whatever that when the vendor delivered the goods to the forwarding | lading they might effect an appreciable saving that by shipping them all auder one bill of agent, and sent a through bill of lading endorsed of freight. The arrangement they made was in blank to the plaintiff, the property in the goods then passed to the vendee by they had the implied authority of plaintiff not an unreasonable one and one I must hold,
the ocean
to effect
It on his behalf.
comes then Post and Company of New York to carry to this: that plaintiff has a contract with his goods for him to Hongkong, no express sum being stipulated, for they are entitled to charge him a reasonable sum and they have Post and Company limited to the sum of $40.44 a lien on the goods, for that amount. Are gold mentioned in their memo? The manager of the defendant company points out that by the memo. he is instructed that consignee clearly means the defendants, the consignee of the through bill of lading is to pay all charges at Hongkong. He further states that he has to remit in fall to his people in New York the sum collected for their account and that the course of business is for him to recover his
charges from the consignee here. Obviously, he is entitled to be paid for his trouble and if he is not entitled to recover here he has a claim against his New York people. Obviously again if Post and Company are entitled to debit the consignee with the Hongkong charges, but their local agents band over the goods on which they have a lien without recovering the amount due, the lool agent has failed in his duty and the principals might refuse to recognise any claim against thomselves.
the election of the vendor. As to the bill of lading for carriage by sea it was a contract between the forwarding agent and the carriers and its endorsement to the defendant company did no more than transfer to them the rights, not of course right in property possessed by the forwarding agent. Again it was argued for defendants that plaintiff could not bring this action without bringing into Court the amount admitted to be due for freight. The reply is, I think, that if defendants wrongfully refused delivery of the goods they were guilty of conversion and became from that moment tort fessors. Supposing under the old system of pleading they had in such a case pleaded lion it would be a good replication by plaintiff that fender of an amount sufficient to discharge the lien had been made and it would be wholly anne- cessary to allege payment into court, See the form in Ballen and Leake, 3rd edition page 746. I am clear that no payment into court was n co8- sary. The property then being in the plaintiff has be further the right to possession? He has not that right if the goods were subject to a lien for defendants' charges; and I come thus to the main point at issie: Were defendants entitled to insist on payment of their charges before giving a delivery order? Now the contrao between plaintiff and bis vendors in New York must be taken, I think, to be that the vendors It seems to me that Post and Company are were to select the goods ordered by plaintiff not limited to the amount of $40.41 gold but are and dispatob them in the proper
ao entitled to obarge the consignee any sum not customary manner by a carrier selected by unreasonably incurred in the performance of the vendor. The purchaser was to pay for their contract. For this sum they and their the goods by acceptance of the bill drawn agent in Hongkong would have a lien on the on him by the vendor and he was to pay goods against the consignee. If, for instance, the carrier the sum due under the contract of Post and Company bad doubled their forwarding carriage entered into by the vendor as his agent. charge in New York, making it five dollars What then was the sum due under the contract go'd instead of $2.50 gold and informed of carriage? I will go back to the original the China Express Company that they contract between plaintiff and the Hawley were to retain their charges out of the Down Company. It is clear that this was not amount collected I do not suppose that plaintiff a F.O.B. contract. Plaintiff ordered the goods would have made any complaint. It can make on the understanding that he was to pay his no difference that Post and Company have left acceptance and that the vendors were to provide it to their agent agent here to make a reason- the goods and arrange for their transit to abte obarge here and retain it for his own Hongkong, the costs of this transit being paid remuneration. Now the defendants claim that by the purchaser. Now, the contract for carriage plaintiff has to pay them $12.50 being as to $5 is contained in the through bill of lading. It their obarges and commission and as to $7.50 is there provided that freight and disbursements expenses of removal from Kowloon. The are to be paid as per margin, and by clause 2 charge of 35 seems to me reasonable and one it is agreed that the forwarders are to have a they are entitled to make. As to the $7.50 I general lien on the goods for freight, think it is diffrent. They have been previous insurance, and obarges advanced.. What thenly warned by plaintiff not to handle his goods. is the amount which is to be paid by the shipper There was no valid reason to remove goode or the consignee and for which the forwarders which might have remained another five daya are to have a lien on the goods carried ? There in the godown free of rent. It was attempted is a reference to the margin, but ass matter of to prove for the defence a custom of merchants fact the amount is not entered on the margin of and agents to incur such charges and debit the this document. Referring to the memo, from consignes of the goods with them. But first the forwarding firm in New York to defendants, of all I cannot find on the evidence that any their agents in Hongkong, I find that the such custom has been proved as would apply total amount to be collected is $40.44 gold This to the circumstances of this 0180, It would be total is made up of four items three of which utterly unreasonable to hold that a person may speak for themselves-ocean freight, inland render services to another which he has been freight, and cartage, The fourth item is one given notice that the other does, not require and of $2.50 for forwarding. This, I suppose, then charge him with their odets.
201
and lawful
I hold then that the charge of $5 was good and that defendants asagents amount on the goods. As to the $7.50 the for Post and Company had a lion for that
pay it. I think the justice of the case may be charge is bad and plaintiff was never liable to met by non-auiting the plaintiff, and I direct that each side pay their own costs.
Mr. Morrell If defendants were not justi- fied in taking the goods from Kowloon I would They ought to pay to take them back. ask your Lordship to say so in the judgment.
His Lordship-If you tender $5. Mr. Morrell I shall certainly tender $5. His Lordship-If you had done----
Mr. Morrell-I did not know it was necessary until you gave judgment, We are in the position of having to pay the carriage back owing to their illegal act.
Mr. Dickson-As a matter of fact it was to their advantage to have the goods over here. Plaintiff bas a business on this side
His Lordship-In the circumstances I am not going to make any order.
UNPRECEDENTED DEPRESSION IN THE MALAY STATES.
The Kuala Lumpur, correspondent of the Straits Times says the trade depression has made itself felt acutely in certain parts of the Federated Malay States; and in one town in Perak, in particular, the effect has been some- what appalling. What with the slump in tin mines, the state of affairs, coupled with the and the consequent closing down of numerous decline in trade generally, is almost unpreced- ented in the annals of Ipoh.
The situation is accentuated further by the tightness of the
money market. And the result is that many houses in the town are vacant for want of tenants; and many landlords have been compelled to reduce rentals in order to prevent a wholesale exodus.
It has been said, that there are no longer those signs of activity in the streeta which batoken healthy and thriving business, for everywhere is the depression felt more or less keenly. Bullock cart drivers, who used to carry on a furishing trade, are now almost on the verge of bankruptey. Even the poor vegetable hawkers are feeling the pinch of hard times. Those vegetables which are considered luxuries and used to be sold in the markets at fancy pricea can now be had for a mere song.
THE DISTURBANCES IN KOREA.
A FINAL INVITATION TO SURRE (DER.
By an extra of the Korean "Official Gazetta " was issued another Imperial decree concerning the insurgents. It begins (according to the "Seoul Press") with a statement that rioters who have continued to m ke trouble since the
soraples, degenerating into robbers. summer of last year are vagrants, with no True, there were some people who became victims of prejudice and misconception at the momentous period of the late national regeneration, but they failed to take any united and harmonious action. With a view to bringing them to peace than one edict inviting their surrender. His without bloodshed, His Majesty has issued more
Majesty regrets to be compelled to admit order is being restored but slowly. Weeds left over- grown prove injurious to good seeds, so the toleration of law-breakers impairs the dignity of a State, surrender of repentant insurgents will be The edlot gives notice that the accepted till the end of October, and no longer. This decision is final and His Majesty ocm- mands the provincial authorities to take proper measures to make the contents of the present ediot widely and thoroughly known among the people.
The Straits Settlements 'trade statistics for the quarter ended June 30, show that the value of trade in the Colony was $23,557 438 less than in the corresponding quarter of 1907. .-
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.