In this age the'plaintiffe claimed the sam of Tis, 10,800 balance due on two them good, native orders each of Tis, 6,000 discounted.
Mr. A.8, Wilson represented the plaintiffs and Mr, H. 8. Oppe speared on behalf of the bank.
Mr. Wilson stated that Mr. Oppe' had filed s written defence, In that defence the Bank denied that the two orders were daly presented for payment and they denied that payment w: refused. The next line of defence was that under s certain regulation of the Bankers Guild. in operation at that time, the plaintiffs were not the people to sue the Bank, Counsel, however said that be did not propose to deal with these two defences now, as they were matter of argument and be had no evidence to callon these two pointe. He woald! call evidence with regard to the claim and with regard to the denial in the! defendants statement.
The facto of the case were briefly that on July 14, 1910 the plaintiffs gave cheque for Tls. 150,000 to one Cheng Vu snd against this sam they received native orders, with ten days to ran, op various native banks, Amongst those orders, which amounted to Tis, 150,000 snd Tls. 200 wore the two native bank orders upon which they were sueing. These orders were each for Tls. 6,000 and they became due on July 23, otherwise the seventeenth day of the sixth moon last year, The cheque was negotiated in the usual way and to the debit of the Estate by the Hongkong Shanghsi Bank, The whole of these transactions were covered by " letter written by Cheng Vu to the Secretaries of the Estate which was the g|otdinary form in use amonget bankers when they were discounting native order. The letter, amonget other thinge, stated" that there were twenty-one sere of native orders, and payment was gnat-anteed on their respective dates, The letter aleo contained a list of the native orders sent in. The Court would see that the business was regarded as an ordinary discounting transaction of orders. Of the twenty-one sets of orders, all had been satietied except these two, Hogo Reies stated that he was a partner in a firm which was the Beorotaries of the Bakit Toh Along Robber Estates, Ld. The cheque, (produced) was given by him in exchange for the native orders. These wore paid in to the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank next day for collection. The cheque which witness ga Cheng Vu wae paid aod apparently to Cheng Yo, s it bore his endorsement. Witness next beard from the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank that the two orders in question hed besa presented for payment, bat in consequence of the failure of the banks they were not met. The plaintiffs bad reosived " dividend of ten per cent in March on these two orders from the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, Io reply to Mr. Oppe witness enid that Cheng Yo was once the oompradore to the company and he was still a shareholder, When the money was advanced it was considered that Cheng Yu's position was seand, It the orders were not met witness thought that Cheng Yn would make and he considered Cheng Vu was responsible, They bad no other security from Cheng Vu and ea tar they had not exercised any lien on Cheng Yu's shares. Witness thought that they were entitled to exercise " lien on the 6,500 shares beld by Cheng Vu, The loan was arranged by witness under instruction from the Board, who it money in discount-
He knew the banks upon whom the orders were made and from various sources he learned that they were good. He conducted the inquiries in May, and obtained the information from foreign books. Witness could not say whetherbemade inquiries from the Hoogkong and Shanghai Bank the Charted Bank or the German Bank. Cheng Yn said that the banks were quite good. Witness denied that Obeng Vu was the only person he made inquiries of,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.