The appeal: from Judge Ki the "Thirty Club Case' sed with costs by HM. Full Court on December 16 by Judges Sir Henry Gol-Jan and Sir Peter Grain, and Assistant Judge G. W. King, etc. 'Phe' ease was adjourned on December 12, when arguments of counsel wore presented, for decision; Mr. 'M. Render Harris appeared for plaintiff appellant, Ching Yue-chee, and Mr, E. L. Hartopp for respon dents, Captain P. ¥. Angus, Messrs. the committee of the Thirty Club.
The full judgment given by Sir Henry Gollan, in the name of him self and of Sir Peter Grain, follows:
This is an appeal from a decision of Judge King dismissing a claim for the sum of $6,933.80, being the vakia of certain furniture and fittings supplied to an unincorporated body known as the Thirty Club of Chartered Bank Buildings, Shanghai, on the order of the defendants who were at all materia! times members of the committee of management of the club, Put shortly the ease for the plaintiff is that the order was given by one G. GE, Wootten who was at the time the president of the club: with the knowledge and authority of the defendants, The defendants admit.the delivery and receipt of the goods and do not ccbject to the price charged for them, Dut say that they made no contract with the plaintiff with regard to the subject matter of the action but their agreement was solely with Wootten with whom they contracted asa. principal. They expressly deny that he was their agent as is alleged by the plaintiff, and there no question raised as to Wootten being the agent of the plaint The defendants further allege that they have paid Wootten the value of all goods supplied to the club and there is no reason to disbelieve this statement, Wootton left Shang: hai in August, 1027, without paying the plainti for the amount he received from the defendants; and the case, therefore, is one in' which one of tivo innocent parties must suffer for his dishonesty, The Case Reviewed The plaitif's evidence is that he was in April, 1926, furniture dealer carrying on business under the style of Bfa Fel & Ca.; but that in February, 1927, he closed his business and left' Shanghai for Hongkong having first appointed tone Wang as his attorney to collect all debts owing to the. firm. 'April, 1926, Wootten, with. whom jhe had had various' commercial transactions spread over a consid able period of time, came to see Finn that the club of which he said laintif' at his shop and informed
hho was president had determined move from Jinkee Road to Charter-Bank Building and would require a quantity of furniture. The plaintif® accordingly had fstimato prepared which was addressed, submitted to and accepted iby Wootten; and the delivery of the goods at the promises of the club was begun in September and completed in October, 1926, The plaintiff further alleges that he pressed Wootten for payment and that the latter promised to pay but failed to do so; and that he all along looked to' both Wootten and the club for payment of his account, is a matter to which attention should now be called. s0 as to prevent any misapprehension, In the notes of evidence and in the notice of appeal reference is made to the club asit liability were sought: to be brought home to it, but it was made quite clear to us in the course of the argument that there was no question of the club as such being Tiable and that, where any ference ix, made to the possible ibility of the club, what was. veally intended was the liability of the defendants in their capacity As has already teen stated, the defendants allege that they did not, when the furniture was delivered and for some time afterwards, know of the existence of the plain Sif, that they made the contract for the goods with Wootten as a principal, that they" never _authorized him to pledge their credit, order furniture or anyone else, Pursuance of their agreement with Wootten they' have Paid him the value of the furniture supplied to the club.
It is clear from the note of the learned Judge that so far as the parties were concerned the question argued at the original hearing was whether Wootten was the agent the defendants or not; "as Mr. Newman said, according to the note, "Issue narrowed was Wootten. agent*of club or compradore." It Was agreed before us that "compradore" meant the plaintiff; and Mr. Reader Harris, who represented the plaintiff, also' argued his ease if the sole question before the learned Judge was that of. the Agency or otherwise of Wootten. We propose, therefore, to deal with the matter before us on that basis.
We have already set out the evidence on this point given on behalf of the plaintiff, we now propose to deal with the statements of the defendants.
Captain Angus, one of the defendants, anda member of the committee of management, stated that the question of new furniture was discussed with Wootten who drew sketch plans of the chairs and tables required; and Wootten was told that the price of the furniture must be kept within Tls. 10,000. He went on to say that he first knew the furniture had been supplied by plaintiff when the writ in these proceedings was served in September, 1928; that he always had regarded Wootten as the man from whom the furniture had been bought, and that so far as he knew: Wootten & Patstone, the name under which Wpotten carried on business as an architect, were making the furniture through their contractor.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.