Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Harvie v. Ferries, 1869

[work done]

Harvie v. Ferries

Supreme Court of China and Japan
24 March 1869
Source: The North-China Herald, 26 March 1869



March 24th, 1869.

Before C. W. GOODWIN, Esq.


Claim for $142: for work done.

His Lordship asked the plaintiff if he was registered; plaintiff said he was.  On referring to the general list of registered subjects His Lordship said he failed to find his name.  Bering asked in what class he registered plaintiff said he registered as a carpenter and builder.  On reference to the lust of artisans it appeared that the name of William Harvie was found in that class, and the plaintiff said that he had paid the fee appropriated to the class, viz: one dollar.  His lordship stated to the plaintiff that as he was a builder he was not an artisan, and that he must treat the plaintiff as unregistered.  The William Harvie artisan, might be quite another person from the William Harvie builder, of the petition.  It would be necessary therefore for the plaintiff to give security for costs as any non British subject suing in this Court ordinarily is required to do.

Mr. Harvey, Consular Accountant, was called and produced the register in which plaintiff was descried as carpenter and builder, and as he had allowed him so to register the Court proceeded with the hearing of the case without requiring security.

Plaintiff, sworn: - I am a builder.  I entered into a written contract with the defendant for the extension of the work.  I did work to the value of $292; this includes $21 for work done not according to estimate.  $271 of work was done according to estimate; the extra work was done by order of the captain and chief officer.  I have received $150.  I swear that all this work is done, but there is one item of $12 about which I am not sure.  That is all the money I received.

To Mr. Stoddart, of Messrs. Glover & Co., who appeared for the defendant: - I swear that the $150 which I received was only made on account.

The evidence of defendant was here read, in which he stated that the payment was made for work done.

Verdict for plaintiff for $130; each party to pay his own costs.

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