This was a motion by the defendants in the above notion, for the suspension of judgment pending appeal to the Privy Me. H. P. Wilkinson appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. ©. Dowdall for the defendants.
delivered by his Lordship should be sus-Mr. Dovdall applied that the judgment ponded, upon the defendants giving security for the amount of the judgment, and $2,500 to cover the costs of appeal. The d dants were prepared to deposit the represented in the Hongkong one Shanghai Bank.
Mr. Wilkinson said it appeared to him that the first question should be whether eave to "appeal should be given. The practice have was for leave to appeal to be Hi Lordahip aula he could not alter the practice of that Court which had prevailed for tiventy-five years. It had never been suggested if the motion for appeal was brought in proper time, and security was properly given, that the appeal slivuld not be granted.
'Mr. Wilkinson argued li the discretion of the Court that the appeal was allowed. 5 'His Lordship suid that it had never been taken to be 26 here. The Orders in Council said "shall give leave," and he could not alter' the practice of the Court. He had no discretion in the matter.
Mr. Wilkinson said that taking it that Jeave to appeal was given, then came the question of costs. He asked that i to: the practice at home the taxed costs the plaintiffs should be paid, the plaintiffs giving an undertaking to refund them if the judgment was reversed on appeal.
r. Dowdall replied that hitherto the costs had not been dealt with until the Privy Council had settled the main issue.
Mr, Wilkinson remarked that the home practice was clearly defined to be as he had Mr. Dowdall said that he had obtained two orders here befure, and nothing was said about costa, Mr. Wilkinson contended that the costs formed " distinct question.
His Lordship pointed out that the motion was for the suspension of the decree, which included the claim and costs.
Il submitted that the matters were not divided as was the case at henie.
His Lordship said the rule had always Provailod hero of suspending the decree and the pradtive which bed prevailed' must entirely upon proper security being given,
be shown to be an unreasonable one before he could reverse it. The jayment of the costs to the plaintiffs, upon their giving an undertaking to refund them if the judgment was reversed, might be an inconvenient course, and he did not see any reason for altering the rule.
Mr. Wilkinson repeated that the course he was advocating was the ordinary practice at hor Lordship said that it must be recollected thnt the American Trading Ca.
not under his jurisdicti of the appeal, and interest on the judgment amount.
His Lordship pointed out that the amount when deposited at the bank would be earning interest. With regard to the costs, could they not be taxed within the limit of time all for appeal Mr. Wilkinson intimated that that could be done, and His Lordship then made an order suspending judgment pending appeal, upon the defendants depositing with the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank security for the claim and costs, and $2,500 for contin expenses in connection with the appeal.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.