In HM. Supreme Court on. Monday, before Assistant Judge King, the Taylor Garage was the plaintiff' in an action to recover Tls. 20 from' C. A. Howard, which sum was said to' be the cost of repairs to one of the plaintiff? compony's hire cars; which repairs, it was alleged, became necessary on ae count of an accident which' occurred at 2 a.m. on December 22, at the junction of Peking Road and Kiangse Road in which the defend-fants car was involved.
Mr. T. C. Leach, assistant manager of the plaintiff company, conducted his company's case and Mr. Ranald G, MeWonald appeared for the defendant.
'A chauffeur employed by the garage said that, on the morning in question, he' was proceeding along Peking Road in a westerly direction at a speed of 10 mil per hour. the witness Kiangs Road going north. Before witness could drive his car o: ross the intersection, defendant's car struck the right' rear mudguard of the hire car which witness was driving. A GPC. who was on patrol duty, appeared and marked that the fault lay with defendant's car, Mr, Leach here produced a Police report on the accident and considerable discussion ensued in regard thereto, Mr. MeDonald r.- marking that the policeman should be called to give evidence and fur~ ther remarking that a clause which had been added to the foot of the report was "not by any means a polished literary effort."
The defendant said that he was acted for a Mrs, Abraham, " Mr. [Tycho Wing appeared for Mr. Arakie and Mr. M. B, Brown represented] defendant.: a In his statement of claim, plain tif stated that he had sold 3,000 shares at Tls. 225, plus one-half per cent. brokerage, totalling Tls. 6,783.15. On December 21, he tendered the scrip, and when defendant} refused to accept delivery he sold them during the December settlement at a net price of Tls. 1.80 less} one-half per cent, brokerage, making in all Ts, 5,373, Plaintiff' claimed the difference, Tls. 1,410.78.
Defendant admitted in his answer that he instructed plaintiff to purchase the shares at Tis, 225 per} share, but alleged fraud on the part! of plaintiff? insofar as he is alleged to have reported the market as being strong, and that he told defen-_ dant that 'Tls. 225 December, was the best price obtainable, further that he at all material times represented himself to be a member the "Exchange", none of which were true. Defendant further, asserting' without prejudice to himself, alleged that the price on tie date of repudiation was Tls. 2.05, Therefore. only Ts. 600 might be due to plain-tit, Opening the session, Mr. Wing spoke at great length in outlining' the ease of his client, and then attacked defendant's contentions, eiting law to show that fraud had not been committed where an agent expresses.an opinion about subject matter of a contract, and in so doing' does not give reason for the other; party's breach of it.
The local rubber mi Wing went on to say, ws to fluctuations because most of the companies were comparatively small and a group of men, exercising a much smaller amount of capital than would be necessary in a similar venture in London, could manipulate certain shares much easier. proceeding down Kiangse Road at about 18 miles per hour. The plaintiffs car was travelling ut a speed which he, defendant, would estimate at about 85. miles hour, In order to avoid plaintiff's car it was necessary for defendant to turn his car sharply to the left, but he was not successful in avoid: ing the plaintiffs car and struck the rear mudguard.
In cross-examination, Mr. Leach asked:
"Do you suggest that 18 an hour is a safe speed to such as was a wet night, His Lordship (smiling) ambiguous.
Defendant:—tI didn't know it was wet, Mr. Leach and counsel for the
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.