Mr, Lewis in addressing the Court suggested that there was 10 cal evidence to connect Chow Dui with the Hung: Chang Hong and in any event, even if he had been the drawer of the cheques, the Ziange Fong Bunk hud no right' of action him or against any of the drawers of the cheques, us they were mere agents for the Kung Tai Hong, to collect cheques as agents of the hong in the ordinary course of their business as bankers, and were a mere conduit pipe to receive payment of the various cheques from the banks on whom they were drawn and hold the proceeds at the disposal of their customer, the Kung Tai Hong. In order for the Ziang Fong Bank to have any right to sue on the cheques it would have to be shown that they were holders in due course, whereas the evidence showed that they acquired the cheques in the course of their business as bankers, merely as agents for the Kung Tai Hong. Mr. Lewis urged the necessity of following the ordinary roles of banking in dealing with native bank transactions where banks had as, he suggested, in the present case adopted a foreign system for their commercial transactions and he refe red the Go Mr. Jamieson's book on nese Commercial Law, as showing that old-fashioned commercial transactions in China did not know any other form of such an me
which was moreelike an ordin Strument than @ native bank onder bank note, He alto referred to the decisions of the Chinese Supreme Court show thir no definite Chinese Jaw exivied on the subject of bills of change, and contended that if the drawer of a cheque was to be held liable to a bank which had received it, merely for collection an imp sible state of affairs would arise, as the proper person to sine was the holder in due course, in this case the Kung Tai Hong, who alone could take. action, there being no privity lof contract between the drawer and the Ziang Fong Bank, and if. the latter were held to have a right against the drawer, he might find himself liable to pay twice over as the holder in due course could still sue him upon debt for which he remained liable.
Decisions om Other Drawers In reply Dr, Fischer "urged that there was ample evidence to connect! Chow Duhalzu with the Hung Chang Hong and pointed out that some of the cheques were drawn by the Hong Chang Hong fora due date subsequent to the date of the death of the alleged proprietor of the Hong. On the legal aspect of the case he suggested that the argument that the only person to sue on the cheques was the Kung. Tai Hong was ill founded as the cheques were drawn payable on demand and not drawn payable to the Kung Tai Hong or its order and that accordingly the Bank had every to sue on them. He referred to a Chinese Supreme Court de: under the heading "Instrument Bearer" which he quoted to show that the holder of an instrument, to bearer, unless he had obtained it by unlawful means, is entitled in law, to demand performance from the Jdvawer according to the tenor of the instrument. He further pointed out that the Court had already in the ease of ull the other drawers of cheques ordered that they should make payment thereon to the Court Accountant, ax representing the Ziang Fong Bank, and accordingly Chow Duledzu was not entitled to have! any other ruling applied his} care, In ity judgment the Court found Dub-daw was the representative of the Hong Chang Hong and in effect the drawer of the cheques und that, in law he was ble to the Ziang' Fong Bank for the full value thereof and ordered him to pay the amount shown on the' cheques to the Court Accountants.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.