Mr, L, E. P. Jones (Messrs. Brushfield avd Parkes) appeared for the pi George Dallas, and Mr. Morgan Pi (Messrs, Drummond, Phillips, and White-Cooper) for the defen Frank Dallas, Richard Dallas, Frederick Dallas, and Mary and Fanny Dallas.
Pisintiff po tioned for an order of the Court to sell No. 2, Mohawk Road, he being " beneficiary in one-sixth of' the property.
Mr, Phillips submitted that this was a cine in which the Court should rot order a sale, bur that opportunity should be affonted the defendants to undertake to purelasethe share of the plaintiff ata valuation. That was under section five of the Partition Act of 1868. The Intest case he could find which came under that statute was the case of Richardson and Feary, which was reported in Chancery Division, volume 39, page 4. That was an application for a sale of property held by tenants in common, made by the owner of one share, The head note hinted that the Court was not hou: d to order a sie, even if none of the other persons interested wou'd undertake to purchase the applicant's shure. The onus was on the applicant to show some good reason for ordering a sula of the property. The decision was that if a party in such a case requested a sale the Quurt had the discretion whether it ordered a sale or not, and unless the parties opposing the sile undertook to purchase the share of the person applying at the Te was true thet that the valunoe reasons phe. There was nu geod reason in thi suit that could be bro wht to satisfy his Lord=hip why he should direct a sale at auction. The position he (Mr. Phillips) would place before his Lordshiys was this The property was bought nearly years. ago by the late Mr. Bares Da las, and some fourteen years dvalnig business phintiff, George Dallas, at 2 Mohawk Rad. He. ea business: son Frederick Dal defendants, Freder whew Dallas stated there was an gre ment of parti His Lordship—I i that the two brothers, one of the defendants and the plaintiff, cerned on the same sort of business, and that one of thed fendants the business which it is proposed to sel', Mr. Phillips, continuing, ssid that about 1899, George Dallas bought part of th property, which he added to, and in Apri of last year he left the old premises altogether and carried on his b sess at 3. Mohawk Road. Th n Frederick Dallas, h whom his sisters lived, commenced a similar business, which he made a gwed and flourishing one. If these premises were lost, if they went for some ince which Ww: unreasonable one, it would be " most serious thing for both Frederick Dillas and his sisters, who were living with him and who were now being supported by him. It was most dificult to yet other suitable premises, certainly premises table could net he obtained by him, ud it se er that if these premises were put up by auction bids might be made and accepted which would have a most detrimental effect on the business, and therefore to Frederick Dallas and his two sisters, It did not Garette. seem to him that any good ground could be shown, im accordance with section three of the Partition Act, that 3 sale should be directed by the Court.
Mr. Jones stated that his client had been trying for a yrext many months either to sell, or to buy.
In the come of some remarks to show that the sale should take place, Mr. Jones referred to certain cases in which similar circumstances existed, and in which the C.urt had given judgments for the plaintiff.
Mr. Phillips further stated that Frank Dallis's share was mortgaged to Geore Dallas. The defendants were living on the premises and were anxious that the business should be carried on by Frederick Dallas.
Mr. Jones remarked that he claimed a sale under section 3 of the Partition Act. If a valuation of the share were made the Iaintiff was not compelled to accept it.
we whole case practically came down to two issues, viz,, was it for the benefit of the parties whether a sale should be ordered; and whether the plaintiff could be forced to sell his share at a valuation, Eventually, his Lordship said that in view of it being matter he would adjourn the case until a day to be thereafter fixed, and expressed the hope that some arrangement would bs come to by the parties. decision Counsel expressed satisfaction with this Shanghai, 31st May. Marrianp v, Roventsox.
Messrs. Browett. and Ellis appeared for the plaintiff, Francis John Maitland, and the defendant, Alexander Leckie Robert son, was unrepresented.
The petition read ay follows 1.—The plaintiff is a British subject and a merchant, and resides at 1, Hankow Ked, Shanghai.
The defendant is also a British subject and a share broker, and resides at the S at age hai Club, Shanghai.
—The plaintitt claims: the defendant the sum of Tls, 480.69, money paid him w the Hongkong "a nghai Corporatio s, at Snanghai on the Sth 1901, for the use of the defer paid the suid sum to the said called upon by the said tue of a continuing guarantee dated th? ninth ay of December, 1899 an by the plaintiff' +t che request of the tty the said Bank for the purpose of securing payment of any overdraft the defendant might have with the said Bank not, Is. 500, craves leave to refer to the rining guarantee when produced at the hearing of this action, 5.—The" plainttl has applied to the dant for payment of the said sum of Tls. 480.60, but the defendant has not paid the same, or any part there!
The plaintiff there ore prays 1.—That the defendant may he ordered to pay forthwith to the plaintiff the said sum of, 'TIS, 480.60, together with interest thereon at. the rate of seven per cent per annum from, this date until payment 2—That the dete nay b+ ordered to pay the costs of this a 3.—That the plain may have such ther ye other relief as the nature of the se may require Tne defendant to this petition is Alesander Leckie R.bertson, of the Shanghai Clb, Shanghai, M. Elis—I appear for the point ff in this ewe. he defence 6 is not presented, my lord, and is here, though nob actually in the Court. I hat better explain that the defendant star d that he no! want to appear, and thit he was to appear. I think his ap:
nce mizht be necessary.
His Lord-hip—The defending' must. be called into Court.
Mr. Ellis—l only wished to explain because I did not wish you to think that he had been guilty of disrespect to you.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.