This was an action for the specific performance of a Contract for the sale and purchase of Jand in Hongkong tried before the Full Supreme Court there in which Lee Pak Cheong sued Mr. G Duddell the owner of two lots of land, The Attorney General in opening the case said. The first telegram that was really important was one sent by Dnddell to Guedes on the 9th January, which, after referring to other lots with which they had now nothing to do, said, "price of lots 99 and 103, $150,000." These were the lots in question. The next telegram he would call attention to was one sent by Duddell to Guedes on the 14th January in which he said, Lowest price for lots 99 and 100, $150,000." On the next day Mr. Guedes telegraphed back, "I have sold lots 99 and 100 for $150,000, $100,000 to remain on mortgage for five years at six per cent." Up to thi 6 no mention had been made of a circumstance which affected the matter, and which was that the property was already mortgaged for $68,000. Having received the telegram last mentioned Mr. Duddell found himself in this position.—I have authorised Guedes to sell for $150,000. I have received a telegram telling me he has sold, or bargained to sell, and I know he is waiting for my confirmation, or for me to settle the terms." There was nothing in that state of affairs that aired that Mr. Daddell should immediately telegraph back, and as a matter of fact it appeared he did not do so for several days. Shortly after Mr. Guedes's telegram had been sent the gentleman who desired to buy the property made some communication which led to a communication by Messrs, Jardine, Matheson and Ca. to Mr. Daddell, and on the 2st January they telegraphed to him, Reported you are offering to sell lots 99.and 100. Recommend consult Mathesons." Up to this time Dnddell's instructions had been, sell for $150,000," but Messrs. Jardine, Matheson and Co,'s timely warning that he was ling for too low a price worked in his mind, and knowing he still had power to stop the sale, as he undoubtedly had, he ied to for confirmation of the sale, he availed himself of his right, and on the 9th February telegraphed to Mr. Guedes to refuse $150,000 and that he would sell for $168,400. Here for the first time it was mentioned that the property was mortgaged, and he proposed to sell the equity of redemption for $100,000, the mortgage being $68,400. Mr. Guedes lied that this was im sible, but subsequently wrote to Rustomjee, the agent of the plaintiff offering the property for $168,000, a portion of the price to remain on mortgage, which proposal was accepted by Rustomjee. It appeared that Duddell only wanted to.sell the equity of redemption for a lac of dollars, a mortgage of $68,000 being in existence and registered. Other telegrams passed in the of which Mr. Duddell was asked by Mr. Guedes to authorise the Manager of the Oriental Bank to receive the bargain money, and $20,000 was tran: a by telegram to Mr. Duddell, who refused to receive it. Inthemeantime Messrs. Jardine, Matheson & Ca. had telegraphed to Duddell this effect, ''Rumoured you are still in treaty for the sale of 99 and 100, Property worth full two lacs. Other property greatly increased in value. Do not sell without reference to us. Have already warned you against outside offers." Well, as they very truly said, some weeks before, when Mr. Duddell very probably would have committed himself to a sale for $150,000, they had kindly warned him, ahd he had retired from that position and refused to sell for anything less than $168,400. Now again it was at the point of the conclusion of the contract that they said it was worth $200,000. That was no doubt much stronger inducement to back out of this bargain then the first one, and he put it that was the reason of his backing out, and not that anything had been done contrary to hi: instructions. Mr. Guedes received this telegram on the 28th, and he replied at once, cannot back out-of inow. Ihave done it," and he mentioned that the security was the land itself. If Guedes had exceeded his instructions they would have expected Duddell to have telegraphed back that his instructions had been exceeded and that he repudiated the matter, but he sent, on the ist March, a telegram much more consistent with the position of a man who had committed himself but had found he had not done the best thing for himself. His telegram was. Stop bargain for Praya. Expenses allowed." The answer Guedes sent once was, "Impossible. Closed bargain. Remitted. Refer telegrams." It was not till the third telegram was sent on the 2nd March that Mr. Duddell for the first time formulated something in the 1 ture of a distinct objection to the bargain concluded on his behalf and it was, " Di approve security. Bargain unauthorised." The security he disapproved must have been the security of his own property.
Mr. Guedes in cross-examination was shown letters which he had written to Mr. Duddell, in which he said Rustomjee had been promised $3,000 by Lee Tak Cheong, and proposed to get him on their side by offering him more than $3,000; that he did not like to see Mr. Duddell lose $32,000, and proposed he should pay him $5,000 including the amount to be paid to Rustomjee, in which even he felt sure they would gain the case. Asked what the kind of evidence he and Mr. Rustomjee were to give if he got that $5,000, his answer was that the evidence would have been the same, and that what he meant by the letter was simply this, that as Mr. Rustomjee worked only for his commission, and was a very good friend of Mr. Leo "Tak Cheong, he could prevail upon that gentleman not to go on with the case and not to get him (Mr. Guedes) into trouble, as he had sold the property. The evidence would not have been that the contracts were made after witness knew the sale was stopped. Witness signed the contract. He telegraphed to Mr. Dud-dell " Wire Scott sign contract." That was because Mr. Rustomjeo went to the telegraph office with him and insisted on those words being inserted in the message.
Mr. Russtomjeo was questioned on this point and said it was the case thas he Mr. Guedes to insert the words ion. In cross-examination Mr.
adhered to the explanation ro-garding Rustomjee's share in the affair.
Mr. Hayllar, for the defendant, submitted that no contract could be construed out of the documents that had been put in and that consequently there
tailed the history of the negotiations between was no cases to ¥o to the jury; and de-the different parties. The Chief Justice after hearing the Attorney General, ruled that there was evidence to go to the jury. Mr. Hayllar dressing the jury spoke of Guedes as a broker with a slorp nose sniting about for business. Ho read the letters of Mr. Guedes, and some amusement was created by a passage in one of them to the following effect—"T am almost sure as soon as a new Governor comes the Chinese will not buy any more property unless the new Governor is as good to the Chinese as Pope Hen-nosy." In point of fact, the learned counsel, Mr. Guedes was simply touting, and that in a very shameless way, running, down the other brokers in the place an poisoning Mr. Duddell's mind against his own agents, saying they were not doing their duty, and that he was the only man who could' put these things through for him. With reference to the letters between Guedes and Rustomjee, did the jury believe those letters were fairly signed by Mr. Guedes, who, as their case was, had no authority to sign, or that they were signed at the dates at which they purported to be signed? And now came a very material point. As it happened, Mr, Guedes sent to Mr. Duddell a letter of a different character from the one sued on as being the original contract, for it contained the term "pending Mr. Duddell's decision regarding the amount of mortgage." Where was the original of that copy?
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.