404
•
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
ALLEGED WRONGFUL DETENTION OF CLOTHING.
A Dreyfuss, manager of the Queen's Hotel, proceeded_against E. Bernheim, manager of recover the Messrs. Ullmann and Co., to clothing, boxes and effects of the plaintiff wrongfully detained by the defendant, or in the alternative $750 for value and damages for detaining same.
the Trustee $100 a month towards liquidation of his bankruptcy debts. He had already paid $1,500, and practically all his bankruptcy debts were in respect of costs. Counsel also asked that the plaintiff be freed from the stigma and disabilities of bankruptcy which were due to the defendant's wrong: that was to say, that he should not have to go on paying this $100 a month, but that the defendant should either pay that sum until the discharge of the liability, or that he should pay off the bankruptcy and enable the plaintiff to obtain his discharge. There was
a great deal of authority for the proposition that where wrongs of a defendant involved a plaintiff in legal liability to pay
Mr. Harris asked that this case be allowed money to a third party, the amount of that liability could be included in the damages. After to stand over till after the trial of an original quoting these authorities Mr. Alabaster submit-action between Dreyfuss and Ullmann and Co. ted that the wrongs of the defendant involved and Bernheim joined as defendants. The original the plaintiff in the liability to pay the Trustee action was for damages for wrongful dismissal, in Bankruptcy $100 a month until he got his and the same evidence would come out in both actions, so that the hearing of this one now discharge.
might prejudice the other. Mr. Dreyfuss now had his clothes..
His Lordship-How long is that to go on? Mr. Alabaster-As an honourable man who has done no wrong, I submit he onght not to apply for his discharge until his creditors are paid off.
His Lordship-How long will that take ? Mr. Alabaster-About fifteen years. His Lordship-If he gets his $1,500, and the $15,000 he is liable to pay, then he gets his discharge?
Mr. Alabaster-Yes. He is asking for money out-of-pocket, and the rest will go to get his discharge.
Mr. Slade-And pay off his other debts, and
so on.
-
His Lordship - What proportion of this total indebtedness is due to costs ?
Mr. Alabaster-About $2,500 of his total indebtedness in bankruptcy is not due to costs. Damages need not necessarily flow directly from the wrong. If, as a result of the adultery, a man is forced to pay a sum of money to someone which he would not otherwise have to that sum could be included in the damages. His Lordship-You are asking now for the whole costs of the proceedings at home?
Mr. Alabaster Yes.
pay,
Mr. Slade said he did not intend to again argue the point of the plaintiff suing without joining the Trustee in Bankruptcy. That point he argued before the Chief Justice, and another point he argued, and which his Lordship did not decide, was that in the statement of claim in this action the plaintiff claimed from the defendant a large sum of money which he alleged that he was liable to pay by reason of the wrongful act of the defendant, Counsel argued that damage to be recovered must be proved to have been suffered as alleged, and the fact that, in the interval between the wrong being committed and the bringing of the action the plaintiff had become a bankrupt, had entirely got rid of his liability to pay the debts for costs which were alleged in the statement of claim.
His Lordship-You mean the bankruptcy wipes out his present liability?
Mr. Slade--Yes. and his creditors have the right to look merely to what funds the Trustee in Bankruptcy has in band. The ankruptcy Law makes it clear that a bankrupt is no longer under any liability to his creditors. Proceeding. Mr. Slade said he further argued that the right to recover these sums of money was absolutely vested in the Trustee in Bankrupty, and that by the operation of the section of the Bankruptcy Act, which took away from a bankrupt the power to enforce his rights, plaintiff had lost his right to recover these sums in this action.
His Lordship-The Chief Justice has differ- entiated the two amounts, but he does not say why.
Mr. Slade-It is very difficult to decide. His Lordship--Wouldn't it be better if this motion had come before the Full Court ?
Mr. Slade-It would create trouble hereafter, because we shall have to appeal. Taking the whole group of claims, Counsel submitted that the intervention of the Trustee in Bankruptcy had made all the difference. At the time the action was brought, and at the time of the trial, the plaintiff was under no legal liability to pay his legal advisers in Hongkong anything whatsoever.
|
Mr. P. W. Goldring (of Messrs. Goldring, Barlow and Morrell) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. M. Reader Harris (of Messrs. Wilkin son and Grist) represented the defendant.
Mr. Goldring said it was true the parties were the same, but the facts were quite differ- ent He did not think that either side was liable to be prejudiced. This was merely a question of what the plaintiff was entitled to for having his clothes detained in extremely unpleasant and rainy weather.
man was
His Lordship-Supposing this rightly dismissed, has the other side any right to keep his clothes?
Mr. Harris-That is a matter to be decided. He owed us a certain amount of money, and we- kept his clothes for two or three days.
His Lordship-Even if I found there was money owing you would not have the right to keep his clothes. Supposing the plaintiff were rightly dismissed, might he not have a remedy for detention of clothing?
Mr. Harris-I don't think he would if cash payments were owing to us and he refused to pay..
Mr. Goldring said his client had not been paid his wages for September.
His Lordship (to Mr. Harris)- If you want an adjournment you must pay the costs of the day.
Mr. Harris agreed to do this.
His Lordship then adjourned the hearing sine die.
Wednesday, November 3rd.
CLAIM FOR MONEY LENT.
Action was brought by Yee Chun Sam against the Yee Sang Co. and others to recover $478.53, being as to $360 principal for money lent, and $118.53, interest at the agreed rate of $3 per $100 per month.
Mr. P. Sydenham Dixon, from the office of Mr. R. A. Harding, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. F. Y. d'Almada e Castro (of Messrs. Almada and Smith) represented the second defendant.
Mr Dixou said the money claimed had been paid to the first and third partners, and they had, on various occasions, admitted liability. Since the issue of the writ the third partner had admitted liability, so the question really was whether the other partner was liable or not.
When the plaintiff was called he put in an agreement which had been made between him and a partner of the defendant firm.
His Lordship pointed out that the document was not stamped.
Mr. Dixon said he would not put it in. Mr. Almada said it was in and required a $25 stamp. If this was not attached the plaintiff would be liable to be proceeded against for defrauding the revenue of the Colony.
His Lordship ordered the document to be impounded, and stated that the Registrar would examine it,
After hearing the evidence his Lordship gave judgment against the third defendant for the total amount of the claim and half of the costs. He also ordered the second defendant to pay for the interest on $360 from the date of the various advances till January 27th,
Thursday, November 4th..
INVOLVED ACCOUNTS.
Mr. Slade had not concluded his argumentation against the Tung Tai Tseung Kee to Ng Tsau, trading as Ng Tsau Kee, brought
when the Court rose.
[November 8, 1909,
recover $221.20 for work done and material supplied, and the defendants counterclaimed $251.80.
Mr. Otto Kong Sing represented the plaintiff, and Mr. M. Reader Harris (of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist) appeared for the defence..
In the statement of defence the defendants They stated that admitted the particulars of the claim, but said they were not complete. simultaneously with the making of an agree- ment to lay cement concrete at the bottom of the holds of a 139-foot iron steamer for $176 on May 14th, 1908, they agreed to paint the said ship for $600 within twelve months, and that the said agreement to cement and paint Defen- formed one and the same transaction, dents commenced the work of painting, or about but did not complete it, and on September 25th they engaged Shun Hing, of Gilman's Bazaar, to do the work. His firm completed the work, and a sum of $523 was paid them by defendants. The defendants counter- claimed $251,80, being the amount overpaid to the plaintiff.
Mr. Kong Sing said there was no dispute as to the items on the writ and the payments made in respect of them, so he thought they could dispose of that part of the case and call evidence on the counterclaim.
Mr. claim.
His Lordship You have given credit for the amount.
Harris said he had not admitted the
Mr. Harris-I have given credit to show how much I counterclaim. I have paid them $550, which is a good defence to their claim?
His Lordship-Is it not usual to give judg- ment on the claim, a stay of execution, and consider the counterclaim?
Mr. Harris-If that happened, my friend would get costs of the action. I don't admit any claim. If I like I could have admitted liability and paid the money into Court. Then there could have been no claim; only a counterclaim.
Mr. Kong Sing-That is what you should have done. There are two contracts.
His Lordship - You have paid the claim, and more for which you counterclaim.
Mr. Harris-Yes.
His Lordship- And the sole thing at issue is whether the sum of $550 was paid or not,
Mr. Kong Sing--It was paid, but in respect of another contract.
Evidence was called, and the hearing adjourned.
Friday, November 5th.
CLAIMS FOR MONEY LENT.
Felicita Martinez brought action against N. A. Beltram to recover 45, balance due for money lent.
Mr. M. Reader Harris appeared for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeared in person.
Defendant admitted the debt, and asked to be allowed to pay in instalments of $5 a month. He was already paying $15 a month on another judgment.
Mr. Harris said he had previously obtained an order against the defendant for the full amount claimed, but had consented to receive the amount in instalments cf $20 a month. The defendant, however, had paid nothing since August last.
His Lordship ordered the defendant to pay the amount in instalments of $10 a month.
F. H. Kew sued F. H. Farne to recover a balance of $45 due for mony lent.
Mr. J. H. Gardiner appeared for the plaintiff and defendant was represented by Mr. P. M, Hodgson (of Messrs. Ewens and Harston).
Mr. Hodgson consented to judgment, but asked his Lordship to make an order for pay. ment by instalments, as the defendant was a clerk earning about $40 a month.
Mr. Gardiner said the defendant had paid one instalment of $25, and thereafter ceased to pay, It was although he had promised to do so. originally agreed that the defendant should repay the money by instalments. This action was brought because he had left off paying, and Mr. Gardiner asked his Lordship to order that $25 a month should be paid.
Mr. Hodgson consented.
Mr. Gardiner-Will your Lordship make an that this action has been brought. order for costs? It is the defendant's own fault
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.