342
No
Witness was asked to stop payment, but said he wanted the number of the draft, the name of the drawing bank and the place of issue. When the Chinese called later on the same month witness advised him to communicate with the drawer, who would communicate with the drawing bank, who in turn would communi- cate with the bank here. The drawers wrote, a letter to the bank here, but it was received long after the draft had been delivered. telegram corresponding with the letter was received. The draft was paid on January 6th, but the Chinaman did not tell him the name of the drawing bank, the number of the draft, or the place of issue before he made the payment. The defendants received a letter from Mr. Otto Kong Sing, to which Mr. Brent replied. No notice in writing with reference to the draft was handed to witness. To trace this draft he would have had to go right through the register and the files. An index was kept in the registers with reference to the names of the drawers, but not with referenco to the names of the payees. If witness had been informed in this case that the drawers were the Bank of Hamilton, Vancouver, he could have traced the draft. There were from 300 to 500 drafts paid on the same day. The draft payable to Man Lee Chan was initialled for payment by the No. 1 Shroff. On being passed to witness he compared the amount with the book and initialled it for payment. Witness did not connect this draft with the Man Lee Chan one on account of the great rush of business. At that time
his department was working until nearly midnight every night. Towards the end of January or the beginning of February a Chinaman presented the second of exchange for payment, but witness wrote on it that payment had been made of the first of exchange. In passing this draft for pay- ment, witness acted in good faith. The loss of a draft for $840 was not present to his mind at the time.
In cross-examination witness said that at the particular moment when he paid the draft he had quite forgotten that he had been written to by the Man Lee Chan and Mr. Kong Sing about it. He would not call it an act of carelessness, as there was an exceptional rush of business at the bank owing to Chinese new year. If he had been able to trace the draft, he would have put a mark of caution in the register.
Why did you not, when you received Mr. Kong Sing's letter giving you the amount of the bill, make a mark in the register? - Because I couldn't trace the draft in the register.
Is not the name Man Lee Chan in a letter of advice you received from Vancouver ?—Yes.
You said had you been informed that the drawer was the Bank of Hamilton, you could have traced the bill ?--Yes.
I put it to you that in your letter of advice you were distinctly told that the drawer was the Bank of Hamilton? That is so, but we got another 200 similar sheets by the same mail.
I suggest to you that you would have looked up the advice if it had been a European client? -Certainly not.
As a matter of fact you had this information, but it was too much trouble to inform yourself of it? Not too much trouble; too much business.
You cannot say it was physically impossible? -It was physically impossible for me to do it.
You are not the only one in the bank ?—That is so.
I put it to you that it was not physically impossible for the International Banking Cor- poration to have informed itself of the necessary particulars after getting notice from the Man Lee Chan and Mr. Kong Sing ?-A clerk was detailed to try to find the draft, but was unable to do so, being very busy at the time. When you passed this bill for payment, so far as you could see there was no endorsement by the payee on the back of the bill?That
is so.
The fact is, you trusted to your compradore, who is guaranteed?--Yes.
Which leads, perhaps, to relaxation of vigilance and diligence on your part?--Not at all.
The No. 1 Shroff of the defendant bank was called, and gave evidence regarding the examin- ing and initialling of the draft in question.
After Counsel had addressed the Court, his Lordship reserved judgment.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
|
Wednesday, April 21st.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONQUE MR. H. H. J..
GOMPERTZ (PUISNE JUDGE.)
AN HOTEL RUNNER'S CLAIM.
į
Messrs. Dorabjee and Co., proprietors of the King Edward Hotel, were proceeded against by W. H. Brown to recover 8254. 75, being as to salary $60.00, $29. 75 as to commission, and $165 for wrongful dismissal.
[April 26, 1909.
coxswain, and witness paid the coxswain for the coal used on the day the women were aboard.
The hearing was adjourned.
Thursday, April 22nd.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR MR. H. H. J. GOMPERTZ (PUISNE JUDGE.)
CLAIM FOR SHARKS' FINS.
Action was brought by Chak Ho On against the Chai Hop Yee Tong to recover $349.53,
Mr. Otto Kong Sing appeared for the plain-balance due for sharks' fins. tiff, and Mr. Daniels (of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master) for the defendant.
Mr. Kong Sing, in opening, told the Court that plaintiff was an hotel runner who received $60 a month and commission which brought in $30 or $40 a month as well as free board and lodgings in the hotel, on March 30th defendants wrote to plaintiff through their solicitor giving him notice of instant dismissal and giving an account of what was due to them by plaintiff.
Mr. Kong Sing, in putlining the reasons given by the defendant Co., said that there was no rule which prevented complainant housing a man in his room.
Mr. Brown, after examination, said it was not his duty to go off with the launch on every occasion. He was well acquainted with the hotel rules, and knew that he was not to have drinks during working hours. When Mr. Dorabjee went through the chits he stopped plaintiff's drinking. Witness had ladies ou board, but could not says if they were of loose character. He had taken guests of such character to the hotel, and they had been admitted. One man had stayed with hini a week as his guest, and witness had quoted him at the lowest rates. Mr. Dorabjee thought that witness had been negligent, and asked him to pay for the loss of certain boxes. Witness received his salary for January at the beginning of February.
Mr. A. D. Gee, manager of the hotel, said nobody had complained to witness of the plaintiff's conduct, and witness knew of nothing that would warrant defendant's summary
dismissal.
By Mr. Daniel: If he had heard that plaintiff was using the hotel launch for his own private purposes, and taking women of bad repute round the harbour, he would consider that was good cause for dismissal.
Mr. Daniel said plaintiff had admitted certain misconduct that would justify dismissal, and had admitted agreeing to make certain, payments The plaintiff had admitted having broken a rule of the hotel, and the fact that it had been overlooked did not now debar the defendants.
Mr. Gee, recalled, said that, acting on Mr. Dorabjee's instructions, witness told Brown that unless he paid half the cost of the inquiries made over the lost boxes he (Brown) would be dismissed. Plaintiff replied. "If I have to pay, well, I suppose I have to pay."
Mr. Kong Sing said it was admitted the deductions were made in respect of $20 cash, and $69.15 in respect of chits, all of which were less than $5.
Mr. Daniel: They were deducted from salary, and applied in the way may friend suggested.
The case was adjourned until Monday next. The plaintiff stated that he did agree later to pay half the cost of the cable, because he un- derstood he would lose his position unless he did The friend he brought to his room hard up and witness allowed him to sleep on the sofa. The man had only one meal at the hotel.
So.
was
Cross-examined by Mr. Daniel: Witness knew one of the hotel rules was that no Euro- pean servant was to drink in business hours. He had broken that rule, but the hotel accepted his chits, until March, when they were stopped. He had women on the launch who came from a certain quarter of the town. Witness had brought guests like that to the hotel and they were accepted.
Re-examined by Mr. Kong Sing: Mr. Dorab- ject knew witness wae signing chits from the beginning. The reason why he stopped witness was because he thought witness was signing too many. It was witness' instructions to do his best for the hotel and he often obliged patrons of the hotel by taking them to and from ships, The coal for the launch was supplied by the
Mr. Reader Harris (of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. P. W. Goldring (of Messrs. Goldring, Barlow and Morrell) for the defendant.
Mr. Harris said he was instructed that Mr. Goldring was going to consent to judgment. Now he understood that the defendant was quite willing to consent with a stay of execution. Defendant claimed it was the custom of the trade that these goods should be paid on the fifth moon every year. The speaker could not consent to a stay of execution.
Mr. Goldring said the custom in the trade was that the debts contracted in the first month should be paid in the fifth month. His client admitted the contract, but said the time for payment had not yet arrived.
His Lordship-You don't deny liability? Mr. Goldring-No, but I want to prove that it is the custom to pay in subsidiary coinage on the fifth moon.
Mr. Harris-The Shanghai Hotel is closed. I don't think it likely that my clients will agree to a stay of execution.
His Lordship-It does not seem very like it Then there is the other point about taking subsidiary coins.
Mr. Goldring-All the defendants in the firm are substantial people.
!
His Lordship-What stay are you asking for?
Mr. Goldring-A fortnight, so that we can get some debts in.
His Lordship And you are willing to pay the money into Court P ?
Mr. Goldring-Yes.
His Lordship-I don't see how that helps you
Mr. Goldring said the remainder of the creditors could come down in an avalanche if one got judgment. There were about $3,000 worth of debts, and $2,000 odd good book debts; these were almost like club chits, and were certain to be paid. If one man got judg ment now the whole lot of the creditors would swoop down on his clients.
*
Mr. Harris They cannot swoop down in a fortnight.
His Lordship did not think he was prepared to give a stay of execution. It seemed to him that there were other means to prevent the creditors rushing in.
At this stage his Lordship adjourned the case until the afternoon for further particulars.
After tiffin, Mr. C. E. H. Beavis appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. He stated that the case was adjourned from chambers on Mr. Goldring stating that he wished to examine the plaintiff's accounts, and intimating that if he was satisfied there would be nothing for him to do but consent to judgment,
His Lordship-Is the subsidiary coin question agreed to or not?
Mr. Beaves-It is not agreed to. Mr. Goldring-Then we'll have to go. His Lorship-The issue is whether there is a specific contract for payment in subsidiary coin or not?
Mr. Goldring-And also whether or not it is the custom to give payment up to the fifth
moon.
Mr. Beavis referred his Lordship to the, bill, and submitted that his friend could not go beyond that document. If Mr. Goldring was going to allege that plaintiff consented to the debt being due at a later date he would have to produce documentary evid ence; and if he intended to prove custom he would have to follow the proper method of doing so.
The buyer of the Shanghai Hotel said it was the custom to pay for sharks' fins in subsidiary coinage during the fifth moon festival.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.