The petition of the plaintiffs who are described a4 mnerobaute, clerks in, kong, read" by Mr. Wainewright, their solicitor, set forth thet on or about Star of Match, 1883, they, through Mess ter and Vernon of Hongkong, stock Samual D. Robi to him fifty Luzon Sugar Refixing Comed, for the sum of $5,400, with don or about shares in the same company for sum of $10,100, with delivery August But Mr. Robinson never com: pleted any of the purchas sequence of his inability to' perform his part in the said contract tie plainti the end of July 1883, ed to take back the shares, on i e should pay them' $3,050 the difference between Ute agreed price of ti 8 and their market value at the time of this arrangement, The arrangeuient was subsequently embodied in letters which passed between "the plaintiff John Alex. Mosely and Mr.
Robinson,: but the amount has been never paid, andthe plaintifis therefore sought that the defer t as administrator of Mr. Robinson's might be ordered to pay the $3,050 together with: interest at 8 per cent since July 1883.
The defendant's answer was in effect that there was not sufficient proof in writing of purchase of the shares; that such is Were barred by the Statute of Frauds; tthe action was not commenced till more than two years after th ual of the claim, whereby such actions are barred by the Regulations for United States Consular Courts, and finally that another judgment having already been given againat the estate, there would ok be finde to meet the amount in the present case if judgment swore given against him, oMe, WAINEWRIGHT said. thatthe first. thing'he should have to prove was that there was a sale of the shares to Mr. Robi ann, that they; had never been paid for, and that the claim that the debt should be. paid out of—his estate was a rossouable one, The sum claimed was the difference, between the contract price of the shares and their value when they were taken over by the pi He had to meet two pleas cavanced by the defendant, the firat Of which was that he (Mr. Wainewright) was barred by the Statute of Frauds, at the other that under the Consular regula-a copy of " lorier bingo in reply to aletter ely dated 11th Auguet, 1883, to.Me, Robinson, which said Messrs, Chater & Vernon inform me that owing to heavy reverses in business you find yourself unable to take up the 150 Luzon shares purchased from me. and have taken over. there. shares at $83, the T much regret your unfortunate por
te ruling on the Slee ult, The old to zon 50 at 108 and 100 to you feel your-aid 1 hope you have received your kind favour of the 11th, and in anewer to the same J would write that my prospects are to gloomy that 1 cannot hold out any hopes with regard to future. If I should be so lucky as to jo it in my power to do anything in the matter you can rely upon my doing my utmost."
Sir, WAINEWRIGHT said that these documents were the only evidence that he was on to adduce, but he submitted wson by which to pay the ug m he could, lottery he (Bh ight) submitted furnished suftici of the promise to. pay all jobinaon, did not uudertal pay at any, particular time, But he did not repudiate the contract, and admitted that the sum demanded was owed by him to the plaintiffs. If he ived it was probable that they could ined him then upon the letter, but that, Lowever was a matter which he (Mr. Wainewright) need not uow discuss, for ied his estate became. charged debts, and the time had arrived when: his executor was able to pay the money or,: at any. rate some. part of it. Lhey did not seek to obtain payment in full, but only wanted to have their claim placed upon the estate and paid pari pass, with the claims of the.other creditors. It was plain that the time had arrived when they might expect fulfilment of the hat Mr. Rubinson would do his that they should have a share estate. With regard to one of the defences set up, that upon the. Statute of Frauds, he supposed that it must be section 17 to which the defendant referred as there was no other section of the Statute upon which he could rely. He contended that the section could not be applied to the shares in a Company like the Luzon Sugar Refining Company. The provisions of the section were that after: the 24th-dey June, 1677, no contract for the sale of any gonds, mares or, merchandise. should, be Silowed to be goud except the buyer stiould have received some of the goods, or something in part p"yment thereof, or that some note or memorandum of the rauaace tion should have been signed, His Howovr, observed that. American law somewhat differed from Euylish on the point.. Sume of the States held that shares did not come under the Statute of Frauds, while others held that they did.
WamNewsicur suid that the law of England.was very well defived on the ok it that the Court American particular point, for it wa" really the law kong they had to ce The question was whether a wri was necessary. They were at a the formal proof of th there was only one lawyer Mr. Drummond, who had practised in the Hongkong Court. When Hongkong was acquired it took, over the law. of England ax it existed at the
and all the decisions which had taken time, including the Statute of Frauds. place in England up to that, time; the question was whether Hongkong had done anything since to alter the law. He could, if His Honour wished, bring the skilled witness referred to, to show that Hongkong followed British logiala-It often made an Ordinance for its own purposes, but it never made one th re was no Ordinance it Biegkone which was in conflict with British law,
Fraud He had ich destroyed in effect the Statute of
the Ordinances, but he did not think it was necessary to go through ded that fr Robinson's really. a written contract, for in it he admitted the claim to Mr, Dosely from Benjamin on the Property to prove that the 17 sec. of the Statute of Frauds did not apply to shares, and aleo cited a number of cases in support of his contention, that of Humble v. Mitchell (11 Ad. & E) amongst others. He had not the broker's bouk to produce, but he lid their sworn declaration proving that the contract was entered into and that they sold the shares to Mr. Robinson, His Hoxovr—You move not been able to find anything like the original contract and you rely ups the letters from Mr. Mosely Robinson?
WAINEWRIGHT contended that it the letter of the latter he really amounted to a contract 5 8 paradox
"ts regerdto the Statite of Li nto pay by cly' nut it 4 Babi srs become
U.S. Consular Regulation fixing after the cause of th was void because it ultra vire was made by a minister with the con Consul led that ly make jons within the: power conferred on him by Congress, Ah the minister could do was to define rules of practin not make a new Statute of Limitatic His Hoxour—The Court subordinate Court, an appellate Court. How far is it oumpotent for subordinate Court to overrule the decision of ite superior? (Laughter), Mr. Warsewnicur anid he would leave that to his Honour, His Hoxovx—I have my own opinion as lawyer, but I would like the question up and decided.
it. Warxewniout contended that his clients were not to be bound by the Con: ular Regulation because the timeatipulated in the letter had not run out. Mr. son now being dead did more money, and hi fore be applied to pay his creditors, His contract began -to take, effect the moment
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.