Judgment was reserved by the Full Court. of Appeal la HIM. Supreme Court, consisting of Judges P. Grant Jones (Presiding), J. Woods, (Chief Justice of Hong: Kong), and A. G. Mossop on Monday morning Dec. it, when te, con: equity it ig well founded, and I will di lant. not for wi memes your Tordships for fa 'At the commencement of the proference' in. ceedings, Mr, MeNeill begged per-Price, at least for such a submission to make a statement correct. Stantial part og. will make to the jing certain impressions that had appellants "proper and reasonable been given. publicity to the effect they have undoubted [that plaintiff was. suing in forma At the conclusion of Mr. MeN paupers. His client was not suing forma paupers, but certain feet speech, the Court rose. judgment being reserved.
Jhad been remitted, which was quite different thing.
The Judge acquiesce Return of Goods The plaintiff is claiming repay. ment of £165, alleged to have copied "the whale "of on use.
complicated appeal case een lent to ' the dant in South Africa. Yesterday's hear day morning, Dec. 12 in H. MIN. was devoted mainly to ators-exa Supreme Court, where a ' Full ration of the defendant on the ques: ing of Judges P. tion of credit, and in regard to eer= Grant Jones and" A. G.- Mossop. tain of the defendant's qualifications, was sitting. Appellants were Cor-upon which doubt had been east bY: lins & Ca. of Tientsin, represented the plainti by Me. PH. Bo Kent, while of eric Marshall, employed by the B.C. Eastham, of the Americ Electric Service Corporation in the Bar, appeared for Mr. Benjam pacify of technical Works 7man= Friedman, respondent. The cas weer, called on behalf of the defence was adjourned at noon 1010 stated that che had known the fendant in South Afvien ever sines Touching on the salient features bout the middle of 1091, and it was of the case, Mx, Kent said that tha} appellant. company was an' old defendant obtained his. present pos inetramentaliy that the established "firm an Tientsin, and though its business was mainly. {ion'in hi frm, roma Beal point of view, he always thou the import and export trade, it/hal That Austin. was an_excellent type ided to this the element of ware: man, a first-class engineer, and hhovsing. In addition, it Jent_ money thoroughly reliable. "He was a against cargo in ite possession, sue) friend of mine," said witness, money. being secured by pledge. 'Witness anid it would bea reflee in 192h, he cantinged: the reepon- tion upon himvelt ¥ the defend dent availed. himself' SE this and qualifications were not, quite what the habit' of "storing they were put forward to. be, but eluding arguments of counsel were hoard "in the appeal of the Chun Nieh Realty Company against produce for export with them, of borrowing money against ft Amongat other securities Collins judgment of Sir Peter Grain, the] Ca, now held were two policies, bot' Chief Judge of H. M, Supreme Court fo? Tic, 38,000, the one in the Lon-Sha favour of Mr.[don, Lancashire Insurance Ca, and Henry James, Clark, delivered on] the other in the Manufacturers Lita May 0 last. The sum of Tis, 110,- Insurance Ca, 000" Chinese sycee ig involved, and peliant had a Londox many interesting points of law bav2 branch, through which business in
counsel engaged. boun advanced and ananed by the England and the Continent vas Mr John McNeill (of Messrs. conducted, and the respondent "re Hansons) appeared to prosecute the quested" Golling & to ship. the London office, Jor: ft to sell ut ain of the ca to it to appeal, while the respondent was represented by Mr, Ranald G. Me-the account and risk of the respond De ent. This was done, Mr, Mee il, replying to points Th order to Keep a stable ratio of ised respondent's counsel, con-exchange, Collins & Go. of Tentsin that there was ample! drew a bill upon Collins & Ca, in of depreciation of the land, London. "Explaining this, Mr, Ko which the dai id that the effect of this was that wis founded, and the appellant borrowed money from measurement for same.
"The, 1espondent", MeNeill, lof the respondent, for. whom if Was itg London flee against the, goods has not controverted the Acting as an agent in this Matte thorities which have beet By December, 1932, the appella by me to show that the causes of company held promissory notes i depreciation in market value were sued Cly the "respondent to. th never considered in cases analogous amount of Tls. 26,000; most of this, to the present one. There is no] however, had" been. paid. back by' foundation in the suggestion that instalments, and Collins & Ca. sugther do not apply, becanos they do ested to respondent that it return fonly to marketable and perishable not specifically refer to land, bu-him" the six. promissory notes exchange for one for Ts, 7,165.88, goods". Great emphasis was lai the amount remaining. Tie agreed, by counsel for the appellants and they returned the the cases of Williams v Arche: When iene. goods. respondent's. goods were (1847) 75 R.R.p 738 and, Williams sold in, England, there were "two Peel River Commissioners 55 Phases to the affair. If the com-L.T.p, 680, Mr. MeNeill_asserti that the whole line of cases ci ted pany lost by the. transaction, the amount lost was debited to his were found on an analogy from the count, and if if, gained, the prof feonversion "and destruction of Was added to "his account. This! Charters relating to land. att, MeDonald having, tthe lst recounts, one, in earing suggest damage east romaic, having, been, caused sterling account, wax Kept, he said, through the Japanese hostilities, in as due to the low price in slive 1992, Mr. MeNeill at once refuted the respondent stood to lose this suggestion and proceeded to money was converted each time, argue that same was untenable be-'The respondent came later With feause such damage would, not have 'a cheque for the odd TTs..7,000 and [iffected the appellants, -had_ they Asked for the return of his goods. not been prevented from selling the This Collins & Ca. maintained they land in the first place. Apart from did not have to do, until. he had this, coanse] for the appellants de-settled his other accounts with them. lared it was based upon a complete 'Mz. Friedman' maintained that misapprehension of the law relating this was a separate affair he was to remoteness of damage, and the entitled to receive back his goods. passages from text books cited on on payment of the money. behalf of the respondent related. to The case was then adjourned to isolated acts, and not to continuing The appeal ie against a judgment Conciuding his remarks, Mr. Me-delivered in Tientsin on September Neill said: "With regard to the 19, when the respondent war sue: damages, I, should like your lordcessful in obtaining judgment for ships to take note that it was ex. the return of the goods.
Pressly found jin the judgment 1982 lat my clients, the Chun Nien Realty Ca. were' innocent pur-An Appeal Refused chasers: they Bought the land in food faith, and they come into Court as, innocent. purchasers, who pre transactions. The de-knew nothing whatever about any Tientsin Consular Court in the ease of Tan Sin-king against Horace G. fendant-respondent admitted in his Lord was dismissed on Thursday by evidence that it might have been HM. Full Court, consisting of food thing' if he had the Indee P. Grant Jones ahd Acting:
Fegistered owners of thie land of Ihis action in the Porturuese Court. As I have mentioned many, many Jodge A! G. Masson, on the. ground that the appliontion was filed beyond the period allowed by law, he betioved what the defendant told Replying to Mr. Recks, witness said:—"I knew he used letters, in [South Africa, but I don't know what they wore. Thad no occasion to doubt his right to use, them, and I don't doubt them now.
'Mr, Reeks, summing up, said the plaintiff had' merely availed himself of the fact that he had in the past made a payment to defendant by means of cheque, and he hand formulated a claim that he made a loan to the defendant. Yet, when asked why he did not get an' acknowledgment, all he could do was to put hie hand to his head, and say: have wondered why i should have been such a fool." He parted with that considerable sum of money to man whom he alleged was a work ing man, a man whose services he said were worth to him one suit of clothes: to a man whom he had been dis ment, yet he the man's statement. that dismissed workman, was going ne manager toa big broadcasting station, and that he would get the Iaintity a good job. Tt was incredi-
The plaintiff asserted that he sold his business, gave up a girl whom he wanted to marry, paid his passage to Shanghai, and gave a goodly um of money as a loan to man to whom he had given a suit of jelothes so that he could look decent Shen "he came to, Shanghaly a never got a receipt, That taxed any. body's eredence..'The defence Wai that there. never was foun a never any. money borrow Mr, 'MeNei" plied, submitting there' could be no. 4 fi ation ata that the defendant had essentially been trying to evade the real issues in the ease.
Judgment was reserved until next Wednesday A Divorce Action, M1. M, Sapreme Court, before Hit Honous Juage P. Grant, Jones Mr, ea" Mahon, represented by HA, Reeks, of Messrs, Ellis and. Haya, petitioned: for Sdiotion gt ie: marriage. to Mary ANA Be Mote private alter with By Sofa Deli inthe Argyll and Sutherland High-Indes flaying hea enoence apport of domelle of the petitioner and evidence of the adultery of the Respondent, and ea-respondent, his Honour Judse P. Grant Jones rant avtccrce nel and the legal eastady of the two children of the marriage 0 the petitioner, Mr. Ws A. MeAllan, Judement Given in Wax Case again re Harvie, Cooke & Ca. Tide Sadement for Tle. 460, was given
INTO at. Supreme Court on Monday. by didate P. Geant Jonen Pisin, Tro Tah & Ca, renrenented by Mre tvanow, ened forthe recousry: of the sum deposited with defen
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.