Shanghai, 22nd April. Before Sir N. J. Haxses, Chief Justice. American Traprxe Ca. v. Rem, Evans This was an action in which the plaintiffs alleged that nineteen bales of piece-goods, which had been fraudulently removed from their godowns, had been deposited with the defendants who refused to return the same, and they therefore claimed Tls. 400 as damages, and in default of the delivery of goods Tls. 3,500. The goods were deseribed as consisting of 4 cases Italians, 7 cases Irishes, 3 cases white shirtings, and 5 cases Mahommedan cloth. The defendants answered that if the goods were stored in their godowns as alleged they were so stored without their knowledge or privity and that they had no interest whatever in and no power of control over the goods.
Mr. H. S. Wilkinson, and with him Mr. H.P. Wilkinson, appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. W. V. Drummond, for the defendants.
Mr. James Jones, the Manager in Shanghai of the American Trading Company, gave evidence that in March he missed the nineteen packages, and through the police instituted enquiries, the result of which was that, accompanied by Detective Armstrong, he saw Mr. Perrott, of the defendant firm, and told him that the goods were in their (the defendants') godowns. A godown man of the defendants said the compradore was absent, and that it was his business. Mr. Perrott undertook the goods should not be removed until the compradore returned. Some time after Messrs. Reid, Evans and Co.'s compradore called on witness and stated that he had advanced a large sum of money on the goods, which he refused to deliver up unless tg rial was made of Ts. 1,770. Witness believed the goods were stolen by the American Trading Co.'s godown man and pledged to somebody else.
Tong Yue-hung, compradore to the defendants, who was called for the defence, said in February last he advanced Tls. 1,770 toa Piece-goods man in the Tung Mow hong upon his sending nineteen packages of goods. Witness was at liberty to put goods in his firm's godowns, and often advanced money upon the security of such pes, Since storing the goods he had ard they were stolen from the American Trading Co.'s godowns by their own godown man, and he believed the matter had been taken to the Mixed Court.
Mr. E. S. Perrott, Manager in Shanghai of Messrs. Reid, Evans & Ca., said the first intimation he had of the storing of the Jones, about the beginning of March.
in his firm's godown was from He made enquiries and was told that the compradore had advanced money on the goods to a man in the Tang Mow hong. Witness' firm allowed the use of their _godowns to the compradore when they did not require them, and it was impossible to say at any particular time when goods other than their own might be stored there.
Cross-examined by Mr. Wilkinson—The godown man is our servant, but we do not pay him. If I told him not to let the goods go out of the godown I suppose I shoald expect him to obey my orders. When I told him not to let them go I suppose he obeyed. After I was ordered by the police not to let them go I suppose I should not have allowed delivery until the compradore's return from Canton. I had no control over them, The godown man is responsible to us for anything in the godown.
Re-examined—We have no list of the goods sent in by the compradore. Our godown man isnot responsible for them.
Mr. Wilkiason argued that unless the goods were bought in market overt there was no defence to the claim of the real owner for their return against anyone in whose possession they were found, and it was Tidiculous to argue that this godown was not the property of and under the control of Reid, Evans & Ca., and this was shown by the fact that Mr. Perrott had ordered his godown man not to part with the goods until Ah Wei, as the compradore was known, returned from Canton and that position had not altered since his return.
Mr. Drummond held that Ah Wei having used the godown free and having been able to store and remove goods without consulting Messrs. Reid, Evans & Ca., the goods were never really under thei control.
His Lordship ruled that Mr, Perrott, in ordering the godown man not to deliver the goods until Ah Wei returned, acted merely as his agent.
Judgment was given for the defendants with costs.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.