Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Sayle and Co. v. Barker, 1870

[sale of goods]

Sayle and Co. v. Barker

Supreme Court of China and Japan
3 March 1870
Source: The North-China Herald, 8 March 1870

 

H.M.'s SUPREME COURT

3rd March, 1870.

Messrs.  SAYLE & Co. v. C. B. BARKER.

Claim for $132.85

Mr. Cowie appeared for the plaintiff.

Mr. COWIE said, this was a claim for goods supplied to defendant in November last and for which payment had been applied, but refused.

Defendant admitted the debt, but pleaded his not having ready money as his reason for not paying it.

Mr. COWIE wished to put defendant in the box, to ask him a few questions with reference to the state of his affairs.

C. B. BARKER. - I admit the amount claimed.  I have no money in hand to pay.  I am owed several sums of money.  Mr. Bayne, as Sec. for the Race Club, owes me $170, for tiffin supplied by me; Mr. Groom owes me a further amount or $100.  I have not authorized any one to appropriate any part of these amounts.  I have no stated account with Lane, Crawford & Co. or with Mr. Bayne. I am managing business for Mr. Cheshire.  I was not trading at the time when the above debts were contracted.  But I understood these contracts as my own private affairs.  I gave notice to Mr. Bayne for him not tom pay the money to Lane, Crawford & Co.

The Court ordered Defendant to give Mr. Cowie an order on Mr. Bayne to receive the money; if that be not successful, an attachment may be had.

Mr. COWIE asked the Court if under the 121st and 124th Section of the Rules of the Court, he could not get an officer of the Court to collect the money and attach in case of refusal to pay.  He thought it would be a saving of time.

His Lordship said, these rules did not apply to the present case.  Mr. Bayne would not refuse to pay without a good reason, of disputing his liability.  An attachment must issue in the regular way which would give Mr. Bayne an opportunity.

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