Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Chartered Mercantile Bank v. Joshua, 1894

[partnership]

Chartered Mercantile Bank of India, London and China v. Joshua

Supreme Consular Court, Constantinople
1874
Source: The Huddersfield Daily Chronicle, 25 May 1874

 

AN ACTION FOR £90,000.

The Levant Times publishes an account of an action which has just been tried in the Supreme Consular Court of Constantinople, brought by "The Chartered Mercantile Bank of India, London, and China, against Joseph Joshua," otherwise Ambler.  The defendant is a wealthy Israelite, who formerly carried on business at Singapore under the style of "Joshua and Brother," and subsequently resided at Damascus, and is at present in England.  While in Singapore he banked with the plaintiffs.

Business was carried on after his departure under the same style, Raphael, the defendant's brother, continuing as one of the managers, and in the course of time "Joshua and Brother" had overdrawn its account with the bank to the tune of £90,000 and more.  Proceedings were taken against the defendant as partner.

The defendant has raised various preliminary objections, which protracted the litigation, and which were decided against him, and he failed also in an attempt to cast off his liability to the jurisdiction of a British court by setting up that he was an Ottoman subject.  The case now at length came into court on the substantial issue as to the debt, to which the defendant pleaded that he was the sole person who constituted the firm of Joshua and Brother, and that he never had any partner whatsoever, and consequently was not interested kin the so-called firm after his departure from Singapore.  Considerable evidence on this point was taken before a commission at Singapore, and affidavits had also since been made pro et con.

This evidence was carefully and succinctly reviewed by the judge, who decided that it was overwhelmingly in favour of the existence of a partnership, which the defendant had not renounced, and for the debts of which he was therefore liable.  Judgment was accordingly given for the amount claimed, with interest and costs.

Published by Centre for Comparative Law, History and Governance at Macquarie Law School