In H.M. Supreme Court on June 27, Judge Sir Peter Grain concluded the hearing of the action in which Mr. Chang Nieh-yun sued Messrs. Seth, Mancell & MeLure for Tls. 639.40, id to be due in connection with the Tiguidation of the Oriental Commercial Bank, Ltd.
Judgment was given for Messrs. Seth, Mancell & MeLure, with costs was alleged that om June 10, 1026,-plaintiff was appointed by the local' manager of the bank. to Viquidate its affairs in Shanghai, the appointment being confirmed, in writing on July 20, hat on or about September 8, 1026, the Jdefendants had asked him to. hand to them all documents connected with such liquidation and had simultily promised to pay him for} This services as liquidator until that date; and that in pursuance of such promise he had sent them-a debit, note for Ts. 750, of which sum the Jamount claimed remained unpaid, The defendants denied that any monies were owing to plaintiff, he in fact having received payment in excess of what was due under an agreement dated June 10, 1926, or that plaintiff had been appointed liquidator, Alternatively, they plead-Jed that if plaintiff was appointed Tiquidator, such appointment was! legal inasmuch as the Oriental Commercial Bank, Ltd. was British company, registered in Hongkong, and as such could be Hiquidated only by a British subject, Plaintiff appeared in person; Mr. AL Preston represented" the] defendants.
Outlining his plaintiff said that the appointment on June 10, was made by Mr..Ou Yang]
then manager in Shanghai of the' Oriental Commerical Bank, confirmation of for on July Hin-man, Yip Pik-chuen, and Kwok: Tat-sun on behalf of the shareholders in Hongkong. He had accepted the: appointment and named Tls. 1,000) as the initial fee he should require, but had subsequently reduced this to comply with an offer that he! should accept Tls. 250 as retaining, fee and be entitled to five per cent. of all collections and ore per cent. of all dividends paid. In addition, he was to be allowed $100° for advertising and other expenses. He had notified the local Registrar of Companies of his appointment and Thad been informed that a Power of Attorney from the Hongkong shareholders was necessary, Matters had been taken out of his hands in September, 1926, and no effort had keen made by defendants to arrive a settlement of his claim.
Gross-examined by Mr. Preston, plaintiff said that he was a fully' qualified Chinese legal practitioner} Jand was fa with English law relating to liquidation. He had familiarized himself with such law by study after his appointment' as, Tiquidator. He did not agree that!
is appointment as liquidator was iMegal as he was not a Britith subject.
Mz, John Alexander Tuénery [partner in the defendant firm,.gav@ corroborative. evidence, adding that plaintiff? had been allowed to. ki Such money as he had collected behalf of the defunct. bank, whicl) amounted to approximately $110, if) addition to whatever other money Ihe had originally received.
his speech for the defence, Muy Preston said that it was abundantly, clear that plaintiff was quite me eligible for the post of liquidator off British company. He had not only, failed to take action against the. bank's creditors because of his une eeriain legal standing but had, neglected to obtain sanction from' Jany court of his alleged appointmenticis. In any case, plaintiff had failetl to! state the basis upon which hig claing'#'H ested... Nor had he stated exacting, 84) jin what capacity he sued or made' 24? any effort to particularize the <2) services in respect of which ° be! brought the action. 'The total sums, collected by plaintiff were Tis, 809," and $100, As there were no dividends to creditors, the amount' owing according to his own contentions Tls. 250, plus Tis, 40.45, plud against which he had received Th, "250 when allegedly appointed land had retained the sums of Tis, 76.68 and $13.33 of the money, collected for the bank. He had, therefore, received more than his Jas given by My. Preston were or according to fact, Giving judgment, his Lordship id that, it was abundantly. el there had been no connection. be: tween the plaintiff? and the defend fants. If action was necessary should have been taken against the fiquidatcrs in Hongkong. He then gave judgment as. stated.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.