Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Allen v. Ford, 1870

[promissory note]

Allen v. Ford

Summary Jurisdiction Court, Shanghai(?)
12 January 1870
Source: The North-China Herald, 18 January 1870

 

SUMMARY JURISDICTION COURT

January 12.

Before C. W. GOODWIN, Esq.

THOS. ALLEN vs. GEO. FORD.

Claim of $252.25.  Promissory note and interest.

THOS. ALLEN. - I am a publican.  I produce a promissory note of defendants dated August 21st, 1865, for $181 to be paid 1st Sept. 1866, with interest from Sept. 1865 at 5 per cent.  In Sept. 1866 defendant was not here.  I presented the note at the expiration of the year to Mr. Whittall, as Mr. Ford's agent, he said he had no orders to pay the note.  In Aperil last year, I presented the note myself to defendant.  He told me he had a couple of irons in the fire and when he got them out he would pay me.  I have not applied since that time.  I sent the note to him a second time and the answer was that he would not pay without going to Court.

To DEFENDANT. - I do not know which Mr. Whittall it was.  I received I think from the Municipal Council $150 that was the deposit money on the premises which I bought of you.

To the Court. - The note was given in consideration of money which defendant owed me for board and different things when he went away.  He went away shortly after he sold me the property.

GEO. FORD. - I am a publican.  I admit giving the note, it was as security for the refund to him of a sum of $130, deposited by me as proprietor of the International public house.  It was deposited by me for the conduct of the tavern.  It was to be given back if I gave up the house.  I sold plaintiff the house and goods about the latter end of Augt., 1865.  The plaintiff said that the Municipal Council declined to return this sum.  I did not ascertain if it was so.  He also said that a further sum of $50 was leviable on the house, and $1 was payable for a stamp.  In the Bill of Sale given at the time, the $130 was assigned with the house.

The price of the house was Tls. 3000.  That money has been paid.  I gave the note merely as security for the defendant in getting back $130 and for the $50.

To Defendant. - You took the house from me for five years, not only the public house, but other property.  I could not insure the council not putting a stop to the business.  I said the note was drawn up as the Bill of Sale was drawn, to be paid a year from date.

J. M. LLOYD. - I am accountant to the Municipal Council.  I produce two documents, one is a deposit receipt for $130.  This note was given for the good conduct of the International Hotel.  This one would be returned to Mr. Ford when he gave up the house.  Mr. Allen has received $130.

C. T. JONES. - I recollect Mr. Allen succeeding Mr. Ford in his shipping office business, in connection with the Consulate.  Of course Mr. Allen became responsible for what responsibility Mr. Ford might have had.

Judgment. -  The evidence of plaintiff and defendant is absolutely contradictory, and the Court thinks that the note ought to have been proceeded on before.

Finds for defendant. Both sides to bear their own costs.

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