Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Mixed Court Decisions, 1866

[minor civil actions]

Mixed Court decisions 1866

Mixed Court, Shanghai
Source: The North-China Herald, 25 August 1866

 

MIXED COURT.

August 22nd, 1866.

Before HSU WEIYUEN , C. ALABASTER Esq.

BLAIN TATE & Co. v.  YEHKEE.

   This was a suit for non-completion of contract.  Plaintiffs had sold 80 cases of muslins to deft. who had taken delivery of 12, but the market having gone down refused to take delivery of the remaining 8.

   Defendant pleaded that he had lost considerably on the first 12 cases, in consequence of the number of damaged pieces, and that he therefore declined to take the remainder.

   Mt. Tate stated, that it was impossible to avoid a certain number of pieces being damaged.  He had opened the 8 cases and there were some 18 pieces damaged, which he was ready to allow for or replace, or defendant might reject one case.

   The Court ordered Yeh-hee to take delivery of the number of cases which Blain Tate & Co. could complete, by replacing damaged pieces from the original lot.

 

Source: The North-China Herald, 25 August 1866

MIXED COURT.

August 22nd, 1866.

Before HSU WEIYUEN , C. ALABASTER Esq.

MASTER & OWNERS NAPOLEON III v. E-SOONG.

   This was an adjourned case, E-soong being sued for balance of freight detained by him for 164 poles short delivered.  Mr. Humum attended, and stated that, in pole cargoes, there were generally a few over or under.  Captains did not generally tally the cargo, there being invariably a supercargo on board who was considered responsible.

   The Court adjoiurned the case, suggesting it should be referred.

 

 

Source: The North-China Herald, 25 August 1866

MIXED COURT.

August 22nd, 1866.

Before HSU WEIYUEN , C. ALABASTER Esq.

W. REME & Co v.  CHEN HAO-FUNG.

   The Plaintiff claimed for Tls. 90, balance of account.

   Plaintiffs sold some lastings to defendant, and on his failure to take delivery of the whole quantity, at his request, sent the remainder to Hankow.  The return sales show a loss of Tls. 71, which amount the Court directed defendant to pay.

 

 

Source: The North-China Herald, 25 August 1866

MIXED COURT.

August 22nd, 1866.

Before HSU WEIYUEN , C. ALABASTER Esq.

MASTER IF SCHOONER "WINGA WING" v.  CHEN-CHENG-CHANG.

   Defendant purchased the cargo of the "Winga Wing," agreeing to take delivery within a certain time, and to pay $10 per diem demurrage for delay.  The defence was that the contract was in English, and that it did not express the terms he had agreed to.

   It was shown that he had taken the contract away before paying bargain money, it was presumed to get it explained, and the Court held him liable under the terms of his agreement.

 

 

 

Source: The North-China Herald, 25 August 1866

MIXED COURT.

August 22nd, 1866.

Before HSU WEIYUEN , C. ALABASTER Esq.

FARR & Co. v.  LOK CHEO-CHANG.

   Claim for $200, on promissory note.  Defendant paid $100, and promised to pay the remainder in a week.

 

 

Source: The North-China Herald, 8 September 1866

MIXED COURT.

September 7th.

   Eight cases of thieving were disposed of to-day, in four of which - cases of pilfering - the offenders were sentenced to three days imprisonment with hard labour.  One man described on the sheet as a loafer, was sentenced to ten days hard labour for burglary; and a servant of Mr. Muirhead, for stealing a blanket.  A washerman was fined $10, for wearing clothes belonging to his employer, Mr. A. White.

 

 

Source: The North-China Herald, 15 September 1866

'SUMMARY OF THE WEEK.

AT the Mixed Court held on the 12th inst., it was decided to refer a case in which a compradore had been in the habit of deducting some of the wages received by cargo-boatmen, to the Che-hsien, it being purely Chinese in character.

 

 

Source: The North-China Herald, 15 September 1866

MIXED COURT.

13th September.

Before - CHUN WEI-YUEN, C. ALABASTER, Esq.

   Four cases only came before the Court to-day, in two of which the accusation being for petty theft among Chinese, the offenders were sentenced to three days hard labour.  Messrs. Phillips Moore & Co.'s gardener was fined $5 for stealing flower pots, he being too old for punishment by hard labour, or bambooing.  Two brothels complained against by Mr. Fitzroy, were ordered to close within 16 days.  The houses in question were situated opposite his residence.  The occupants had resided there for some months, and pleaded that they had paid rent in advance and had not been personally disorderly.  Mr. Fitzroy complained more of the conduct of the foreign frequenters that of that of the tenants themselves.  A letter from Mr. Underwood was put in corroborating the complaint.  Mr. Fitzroy mentioned that he had already complained to the agent of the property, but without effect.

 

 

Source: The North-China Herald, 22 September 1866

MIXED COURT.

September 15th.

Before - CHUN WEI-YUEN,  SHU HAE-FUNG, C. ALABASTER, Esq.

   A Chinaman who had been deported for being a bad character, was brought up, having returned to the settlement, and remanded.  His peculiar forte is stealing clocks, and it is rather hoped some of those, which have been stolen lately, may be recovered from him. 

   A shopkeeper was charged by Mr. Cooper with a breach of the new game regulation, in offering pheasants for sale, contrary to the Taotai's proclamation.  There were several brace in the shop exposed for sale.  The defendant pleaded that one brace had been sold him by a foreigner's servant; and as the Taotai's proclamation had not been posted, he was warned and dismissed.

   One Wang-ah-chin was sentenced to 14 days' hard labour for burglary, Wang-a-hue to three days engine for petty theft, and a cook named Wuh-a-sung to seven days' cangue for desecrating the cemetery by destroying shrubs - whether for cooking purposes did not clearly appear,.

 

 

Source: The North-China Herald, 22 September 1866

MIXED COURT.

September 15th.

Before - CHUN WEI-YUEN,  SHU HAE-FUNG, C. ALABASTER, Esq.

J. G. S. COGHILL v.  CHAN-TZE-YUEN.

This was a claim for Tls. 563.50 - Tls. 163.50 on account of arrears of rent, and Tls. 400 on account of a half year's rent, payable, under the terms of the lease, in advance.  The lease was put into Court to prove the agreement.  An order was made for payment of the Tls. 163.50 within three days.  The payment of the Tls. 400 was also decreed.

 

Source: The North-China Herald, 22 September 1866

MIXED COURT.

September 15th..

Before - CHUN WEI-YUEN,  SHU HAE-FUNG, C. ALABASTER, Esq.

ADAMSON & Co. v. KINKEE.

   The plaintiffs in this case claimed Tls. 1,800 for six months interest on a loan of Tls. 30,000.  If this sum Tls. 27,000 had been paid through H.M. Consulate in January 1862, and subsequently to this payment the remaining Tls. 3,000.  The title deeds were transferred to the plaintiffs, who now hold them.  No receipt was, however, taken, or other memorandum of the payments.  The defendant assigned no reason for non-payment after the close of last year, but set up a counter-claim through Messrs. Cowie & Co., for losses incurred up country.  The Court decreed payment of the sum claimed within ten days, right being reserved to the defendant to bring an action in support of his alleged counter-claim.

 

Source: The North-China Herald, 22 September 1866

MIXED COURT.

September 15th.

Before - CHUN WEI-YUEN,  SHU HAE-FUNG, C. ALABASTER, Esq.

MASTER AND OWNERS "NAPOLEON III" v. E-FOONG.

   In this case, Jardine, Matheson & Co. claimed for balance of freight on cargo of poles brought up in the "Napoleon III," from Foochow.  The defendant pleaded a set-off in the shape of some 180 poles short delivered.  The fact was admitted, but a counter claim was raised that the Captain had added to the bill of lading the clause "more or less," and was therefore freed from his responsibility.

   It appeared on evidence that the cargo was at least partially tallied out by the officers of the ship.  It is to be presumed, therefore, that it was tallied in; and although an error of some ten or so poles might easily occur, the number missing in this case is excessive.

   The Court therefore dismissed the claim with costs.

 

Source: The North-China Herald, 22 September 1866

MIXED COURT.

September 21st.

Before - CHUN WEI-YUEN,  SHU HAE-FUNG, C. ALABASTER, Esq.

C.  R. ENGLAND v. SEE-CHONG.

   The plaintiff claimed #12.30, balance of $16.30, for making out bills to the amount of $815.  He had charged 2 per cent for the service.  He had been occupied at intervals during three months, sometimes for an hour, sometimes more, at a time.  The defendant had paid $4 on account.  There had been no specific agreement, but plaintiff had mentioned that he should charge 2 per cent.  The Court ordered payment of the $12 claimed.

 

Source: The North-China Herald, 22 September 1866

MIXED COURT.

September 21st.

Before - CHUN WEI-YUEN,  SHU HAE-FUNG, C. ALABASTER, Esq.

BOWER HANBURY & Co. v.  TUNG-CHE.

   This was an action for breach of contract, in reference to a sale of Shirtings.  As there was no evidence forthcoming, the case was adjourned.

 

Source: The North-China Herald, 22 September 1866

MIXED COURT.

September 21st.

Before - CHUN WEI-YUEN,  SHU HAE-FUNG, C. ALABASTER, Esq.

R. FRANCIS v.  CHEN-SUN-LE.

   The defendant had contracted to make the necessary repairs to a house belonging to plaintiff for Tls. 6000, within a stipulated time.  The repairs were not duly completed; so rent was lost.  Mr. Cowie, on behalf of the plaintiff claimed Tls. 1,500 damages.  Mr. Lawrance, for the defendant, denied the breach of contract, alleging that the constant alterations he was required to make, caused the delay.  He further pleaded a set off of Tls. 600. Mr. Corner deposed that the house was not habitable till more than a year after the limit fixed by the contract.  The Court decided that the contract had not been completed within the term specified, and assessed the penalty at Tls. 600; the balance due to him on account of the contract, however, to be paid him.

 

 

Source: The North-China Herald, 22 September 1866

MIXED COURT.

September 21st.

Before - CHUN WEI-YUEN,  SHU HAE-FUNG, C. ALABASTER, Esq.

BLAIN, TATE & Co. v. SING-KEE.

   This case was referred to arbitration of Messrs. Duncanson and Iveson, and the court will give effect to their decision.

 

 

Source: The North-China Herald, 22 September 1866

MIXED COURT.

September 21st.

Before - CHUN WEI-YUEN,  SHU HAE-FUNG, C. ALABASTER, Esq.

"ANN ADAMSON" v.  TUKSING.

   In this case Captain Hutton of the "Ann Adamson" claimed 1,200 dollars for balance of freight.  The evidence was of a highly conflicting nature and the Court recommended as a compromise that Capt. Hutton withdraw his claim of receipt of 500 dollars.  If this recommendation was not taken, the Court would give a decision to this effect when it next sat.

 

 

Source: The North-China Herald, 22 September 1866

MIXED COURT.

September 21st.

Before - CHUN WEI-YUEN,  SHU HAE-FUNG, DR. JENKINS.

AUGUSTINE HEARD & Co., v.  CHU-FAH-MOW.

   Plaintiffs claimed repayment of Tls. 10, 079.20 balance of cash advanced on a silk contract which was not fulfilled.  Tls. 68,000 were advanced, and silk was rendered to the extent only of Tls. 58,000.  The debt was admitted, and judgment given for payment within 30 days.  It was shown in the course of evidence that the defendant had money in Trautman' & Co.'s hands which, however he said he could not withdraw without their consent till 1868.  The plaintiffs asked whether, in the meantime, the defendant could be required to deposit the title-deeds of a certain silk hong in Haining, belonging to him; but Dr. Jenkins did not think the security would be of any value.

 

 

Source: The North-China Herald, 6 October 1866

MIXED COURT.

September 21st.

Before - C. ALABASTER, Esq., AND SHU.

Dow &Co. v. Munsun.

   Mr. McLean appeared for the firm, and Mr. Macall official assignee, was also in Court.

   Messrs. Dow claimed Tls. 11,000 on the security of a bond to the following effect.

On the transactions on tea and other goods between Wokee, (Messrs. Dow) and Munsun, from the eleventh year of Hienfung to the second year Tung-cheh, there is a balance in favour of Messrs. Dow & Cop., of Tls. 11,000 Hankow sycee.  This money is in the hands of Chou-cheong and will be paid by him in six months from date. Should he fail to do so, he alone will be called in question for the amount, for which Munsun is in no way liable.

   The Court gave judgment for the defendant, but gave permission to Messrs. Dow and Co., to sue for the tea at Hankow, where an important witness to the transaction was.

 

Source: The North-China Herald, 6 October 1866

MIXED COURT.

September 21st.

Before - C. ALABASTER, Esq., AND SHU.

Bower, Hanbury & Co. v. Chunkee.

   This was a claim for Tls. 850 on the ground of non-fulfillment of contract.  It had come before the Court on a previous occasion, but was adjourned to allow the value on the 22nd Sept. of certain shirtings in question to be ascertained.  As no arrangement had been come to between the parties, judgment was given for plaintiffs.  Tls. 850, less the bargain money.

 

 

Source: The North-China Herald, 13 October 1866

MIXED COURT.

Before - CHALLONER ALABASTER, Esq., and SHU HAE-FUNG.

Messrs. JARDINE, MATHESON & Co. v. WOKEE.

   In this case Mr. Fischer from the firm of Jardine Matheson & Co. stated that Wokee had purchased from then five chests of Opium at Tls. 545, but had not taken delivery.  He claimed that delivery be enforced or a compensation of Tls. 948 be awarded.  Mr. Fischer made up the Tls. 948 thus p-0 Tls. 725 demurrage and Tls. 223 for six months interest on the gross cost.

   The Court awarded demurrage and three months interest - they not having the power to grant interest for a longer period, and directed that this amount be paid or delivery taken within three days.

 

Source: The North-China Herald, 13 October 1866

MIXED COURT.

Before - CHALLONER ALABASTER, Esq., and SHU HAE-FUNG.

D. A. RUSSELL v. SE-A-NING.

   In this case Russell had leased verbally a stable to Se-a-ning from month to month.  After having paid five months rent, Se-a-ning disappeared for a time, having first sold the remainder of his lease and the stables, according to Russell's statement.  The plaintiff now claimed from Se-a-ning twelve months rent, it being a year since any rent had been paid him.

   The lease being only from month to month, the Court gave one month's rent and advised Russell that he could proceed against the person with whom Se-a-ning had dealt.

 

Source: The North-China Herald, 13 October 1866

MIXED COURT.

Before - CHALLONER ALABASTER, Esq., and SHU HAE-FUNG.

Messrs. PRESTON, BRUERLL & Co. v. TUNG-KIN-KEE.

   In this case, the Court ordered payment of the difference Tls. 1,230 and three months' interest Tls. 114, and gave s even days for trhe payment.

 

Source: The North-China Herald, 13 October 1866

MIXED COURT.

Before - CHALLONER ALABASTER, Esq., and SHU HAE-FUNG.

J. G.  S. COGHILL v. CHAN-TZSE-YUEN.

   This was an action for the recovery of rent in advance.

   The Court decreed payment as petitioned.

 

The North-China Herald, 6 October 1866

The Mixed Court has now been in operation sufficiently long to enable a fair opinion to be formed of its merits; and if the amount of business transacted be any criterion of value, the verdict must be strongly in its favour.  Certainly, in this sense, it has far exceeded expectation; indeed perhaps one of the best means of estimating its advantage, is to consider how we could do without it.  Its working is of course not perfect.  In fact, it is still on the tentative footing on which it was first placed.  But the tentative phase of its existence has now lasted long enough; and if, as we think, the results have proved that thr theory of the Court is correct, it is time the power it enjoys be widely extended.  Some of the sentences it can inflict are more severe than they sound, but are still very inadequate; while others are ridiculously light. 

[Continues with discussion of the various punishments.] ...  A first innovation has been made by the establishment of a Mixed Court.  We would gladly see a second more important one in the erection of a gaol, for the capital laid out on which, the fees of that Court would prove amply remunerative.

 

 

Source: The North-China Herald, 20 October 1866

Much discussion appears to have arisen relative to Mr. Yates, of the Board of Foreign Missions of Southern Baptist Convention U.S.A., declaring his intention of acting as Chinese Advocate in the Mixed Court.  The incongruity of a Minister of the Gospel acting as a barrister, is of course at first startling; but every expression of disapproval of such a union of discordant professions, is silenced by a reference to the fact that the Apostle of the gentiles employed himself as a tentmaker. ....

    We are inclined to believe then that, as Lord Macaulay said, a Royal Academy which should also be a Bank, would exhibit very bad pictures and discount very bad bills; so a Divine who should also be a barrister, would preach very bad sermons and hold very doubtful briefs.  Mr. Horne Tooke would not have increased his fame had he obtained a seat in Parliament, and so Mr. Yates, like the author of the "Diversions of Purley," may do far more good in his generation by writing a book on China than by pleading causes in the Mixed Court.

...

SUMMARY OF THE WEEK.

We are glad to learn that H.B.M. Consul, during his recent stay at Peking, succeeded in obtaining the appointment of a magistrate to sit in the Mixed Court, with the full power of a Che-hsien.

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