98
SUPREME COURT.
Saturday, 24th July.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR MR. H. H. J. GOMPERTZ (PUISNE JUDGE.)
MONEY LENT.
Prom Singh brought an action against A. R. Diercks for the recovery of 830 due under a promissory note. Mr. J. H. Gardiner appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. F. B. Bowley appeared for the defendant..
Plaintiff stated that he lent defendant $250 and received as security a promissory note for $300. Under cross-examination he admitted that Mr. Frerichs had signed the note as well as defendant. Plaintiff did not know where Mr. Frerichs was now. He did not know that he had left the Colony on July 2nd. He did not make him a party to the action because he did not pay the money to him, but to the defendant
A. A. Cassumboy, a shroff, spoke to Mr. Frerichs having a conversation with the plain. tiff about lending money and witness acted as interpreter. Defendant was not present at that interview and plaintiff wanted defendant to sign the note. Plaintiff handed the money to Mr. Frerichs.
Defendant admitted his liability less $45 which he said had been paid.
His Lordship gave judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed less $45, the money to be repaid by monthly instalments of $25, and the costs of the case to be paid at once.
Monday, 26th July.
CLAIM FOR GOODS SUPPLIED.
recover
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
Action was brought by Abdul Kader against Kirpa Ram and Mangtu Ram to $159.67 due for goods supplied.
Mr. Reader Harris (of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. J. H. Gardiner represented the second defendant. Mr. Harris asked leave to amend the descrip- tion of the defendant by adding the words "lately carrying on business in partnership with others at 30, Austin Road, Kowloon," to the
writ.
His friend consented.
His Lordship allowed leave to amend. Mr. Harris said the action was a simple one for goods sold and delivered, and called the plaintiff.
bdul Kader said there were three partners in the defendant firm, but one of them was now dead. The goods supplied were flour and another commodity. The three partners used to order goods and took them away from his godown themselves on receipt of his delivery orders.
In cross-examination plaintiff said he had
been trading on his own account since July last year. There was no signboard over his shop
bearing the name h Ying and
0.
One pay.
ment made by the defendants was not entered in his books, but he had receipted their bill. Witness issued a warrant for the arrest of the second defendant the day his shopman told him the defendant was going to leave the Colony. He did not know that the second defendant was carrying on a very thriving business at Taipo, and that he was not likely to leave the Colony until the completion of the railway.
Bailiff Rozario deposed to arresting the second
defendant at Austin Road, Kowloon.
Mr. Harris put in the file of a summary action in 1908 in which the second defendant sued as a plaintiff and described himself as a partner in the business at 30, Austin Road.
Mr. Gardiner said the defence was that the amount claimed was not due from the second defendant at all. He had never been a partner in the firm, but he was in partnership with another Indian in a shop at Taipo.
was
His Lordship-When the defendant arrested he came into chambers, but made no statement of that sort. He said he could get the money if he sent a man to 'I aipo.
Mr. Gardiner I have known all along the ins and outs of this firm,
His Lordship-It's very extraordinary that he shouldn't have told me something about this matter when he came before me. Instead, he practically admitted the claim.
Mr. Gardiner-This is an excellent defence, I know the defendant was never a partner, and shall prove it conclusively.
His Lordship If he is, not a partner, and held himself out as one, he is liable.
Mr. Gardiner-He never has held himself out as a partner. There is no reason why he should.
Defendant said he was sent to the plaintiff by the first defendant and another Indian to procure four on their account. Plaintiff refused io supply the flour as he did not know the defendant, so the men he was doing the business for gare him $50 to get the flour. On his own account defendant had always paid cash for goods he bought, and plaintiff had never asked him for payment of the amount claimed. He never represented to the plaintiff that he was a partner in the Austin Road shop. Witness bought his share in the Taipo shop from the first defendant. He had no intention at the present time of quitting the Colony, as he was carrying on a good business. and had a lot of money to collect.
Does the shopman who brought about your arrest know that—Yes. All the world knows it. Cross-examined-Defendant first met the plaintiff about eighteen months ago, when he went to buy flour.
Then how was it, six months after, when you went to buy flour he said he didn't know you? He did not mean he did not know me, but that he would not give me credit.
After further evidence the hearing was adjourned.
Tuesday, July 27th.
CLAIM FOR WAGES.
A. Landau sued the Oriental Brewery, Ltd., ta recover $209.50, being as to $100 for one month's wages; as to $100, one month's wages in lieu of notice; and as to $9.50, out of pocket expenses agreed to be paid by defendants.
[August 2, 1909.
Have you given the Oriental Brewery any list of your out of pocket expenses ?- No.
Didn't Mr. Hocking at one time ask you to make a regular report of your work for the day and your expenses ?--, No.
Mr. Davidson said the Company denied liability as to travelling expenses, because they had not been furnished with particulars. They had paid 833.33 into Court for wages due to defendant, whose case he proceeded to outline. The plaintiff, he said, went to see Mr. Hocking about June 20th, and asked for employment. Mr. Hocking informed him that their previous runner had left because he had been extremely unsatisfactory, and had not brought in enough
orders to pay his salary. Mr. Hocking told the plaintiff he would take him on trial at $10, and that his position would depend upon the way he worked. Plaintiff was extremely unsatisfactory, was never in the office, and got practically no orders at all. At the end of the month, when the other employees of the Company were receiving their wages, Mr. Hocking instructed the cashier to pay plaintiff his wages to the end of the month and dismiss him. Mr. Hoffman told plaintiff on that day that his services would be no longer required and tendered him $33.33 for wages and A receipt, Plaintiff then said nothing about out of pocket expenses, but refused to sign the receipt, saying he would see the manager.
Mr. A. Hocking, manager of the defendant Company, gave evidence on the lines of his solicitor's opening statement. He denied that plaintiff placed the beer at Weismann's, and said he required a statement of all ont of pocket ex-
enses.
In cross-examination defendant stated that when he gave plaintiff the letter he held he (witness) expected that plaintiff would stay in the employment of the Brewery for months. After plaintiff had been there three days witness told him he must render a statement of the
Went to
places he had visited, the business he had done, and the expenses he had incurred. Mr. Crowther Smith (of Messrs. Almada and
Re-examined-After plaintiff's dismissal he Smith) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Davidson (of Messrs. Hastings and Hastings!(ompany should open a beer hall. Witness said see witness and suggested that the represented the defendants.
help it would be a good idea, as he thought it might some. Plaintiff did not then mention anything about travelling expenses.
-
Plaintiff deposed to entering defendants cployment on June 21st, when it was agreed that he should start work on a monthly salary of $100 and riesha expenses. The general manager also gave him a letter of recommenda tion to clients, which he produced. On July 1st witness went to work as usual, returning to but the bookkeeper asked him if he had the letter the office at noon He did not see the manager.
had not got it with him, and then the book. he received on his appointment. Plaintiff said he keeper told him it was the first of the mouth, further, as there was not enough work for him. and that they would not require his services When he saw the general manager that gentle. Witness had
man told him the same story.
introduced the Company's beer to Weismann's, Bertoloni's and the Mutual Stores, and other
firms had promised to give him orders.
In cross-examination plaintiff said he was a clerk in the Hongkong Hotel before he joined the Oriental Brewery Co. He did not leave there because he had a conuection with another! that he was a brother Mason. The manager. hotel. Но gave Mr. Hocking the reference
trial. did not say that he would engage plaintiff on
The fact that you were a Mason wasn't much guarantee that you could sell beer, was it ? - No, but I am a good canvasser.
Did Mr. Hocking tell you that your predeces. sor did not bring in enough business to pay his salary?- No. much.
Mr. H. E. Hoffman, cashier to the Brewery Company. gave evidence as to tendering plain-
tiff 833.33 with his notice of dismissal. Plaintiff fused to accept it, saying that he wanted a
month's notice.
Lordship reserved judgment.
After listening to the solicitors' addresses, his
ALLEGED FALSE IMPRISONMENT.
Action was brought by Mak Tit Sang against sustained for alleged wrongful imprisonment. Chan Kwan Shan to recover $500, damages
Mr. Crowther Smith (of Messrs. Almada and Smith) represented the plaintiff, while Mr. P.
Sydenham Dixon (of Mr. R. A. Harding's office) appeared for the defendant.
His Lordship said he had seen a subpoena addressed to the Registrar calling upon him to produce the Judge's notes. The proceeding was to apply for a certified copy.
Mr. Dixon-I have the exhibits. I don't mind about the notes.
Plaintiff said he was the manager of the Po On firm, but was not and had never been a partner. On July 7th the bailiff and defendant called at the shop and asked for the master. Plaintiff said he had gone to a solicitor's office. The bailiff then seized the shop, and on defen- dant's instructions seized plaintiff, who was taken to jail, where he remained for about 24
hours. He said he was driuking too
What do you mean by saying you introduced the beer into Weismann's-I persuaded them to take a cask, and they took a cask a day after wards.
You kept no record of what orders you! obtained?-No, because I got no commission.
nd Mr. Hocking didn't say that if you did sidered ?-No. well the question of commission would be con-
there was not enough work for you? That I
What did Mr. Hoffman mean when he said.
can't understand.
I suggest that what he said was that you were not getting enough work? No.
It was rather a silly thing that Mr. Hoffman said?-I can't give any opinion.
į
Witness was uncomfortable while he was there. He had no evening meal and could got no sleep, and was upset after coming out.
Cross-examined-Surely you're not going to deny that you are a partner in the Po On ?— I'm not a partner.
but in the summary action you were held by the Judge to be a partner?-Truly, I'm not a partner.
Mr. Smith-Your Lordship never held that he was a partner.
His Lordship Having held he was a partner I cannot hold that he was not. I would drop that point.
Mr. Dixon stated that as soon as his client got judgment and issued execution he told the bailiff to go to the shop and if he did not find sufficient security-that was, sufficient pro-
Page 10Page 11
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.