Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Watson v. Hume, 1871

[board and lodging]

Watson v. Hume

Supreme Court of China and Japan
14 March 1871
Source: The North-China Herald, 22 March 1871

 

 

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT  .

March 14th, 1871.

Before C. W. GOODWIN, Esq., Acting Chief Judge.

J. B. WATSON, Hongkong, by his Attorney, W. BIRT, of Shanghai, v. J. W. HUME.

Claim for $165 for board and lodging and money lent.

   His Lordship observed that no answer had been filed to the petition, and no appearance made on the part of the defendant the question now was had he been served with the Petition.

   J. SMITH, Court Usher, sworn, stated that he served the petition on defendant inside the Astor House.

   C. H. SCHEPPELMANN, sworn, said he served notice of trial by defendant's boy, at the Telegraph Hotel, Woosung, on the 8th March.

   W. BIRT, Attorney for plaintiff, proprietor of the Stag Hotel at Hongkong, sworn, said - I file Power of Attorney from Mr. Watson of Hongkong.  I know no more of the case than that he sent up the bill handed in, of the amount of $165, which he desired me to enforce.  About 12 months ago I was in Hongkong, and inquiries were then made of me with reference to Mr. Hume, by Mr. Watson.  Mr. Hume is a member of the Pilot Company, whose offices are at Messrs. Mackenzie and Co.  I have written twice to him at that address, making formal demand for the sum, but got no reply.  I have inquired whether the letters ever reached him, and was told thst Mr. Hume wae very frequentl7 in and out there, and that letters sent tgher4 would be delivfered to him.  I wrote last just prior to my filing the petition in Court, probably in the month of January.

   His Lordship said Mr. Watson ought to have sent up an affidavit of the bill along with it, that such a verification made before a magistrate there would be more competent in this Court.  Compound interest was also added, but this the Court could not allow.

   Case adjourned for Mr. Watson's affidavit.

 

Supreme Court of China and Japan
4 April 1871
Source: The North-China Herald, 12 April 1871

 

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT.

4th April, 1871.

Before C. W. GOODWIN, Esq., Acting Chief Judge.

J. B. WATSON, Hongkong v. J. W. HUME.

Claim for $165, board and lodging and money lent.

   Adjourned from 14th March.

   Mr. Birt appeared as attorney for plaintiff and put in affidavit of the debt.

   Defendant did not appear.

   His Lordship said the only question was as to interest.  He thought plaintiff should have sued earlier for the debt and could only have interest up to the date of the first demand.

   Mr. Birt said that would be rather hard, seeing the the plaintiff's forbearance had been solely with a desire to spare defendant the cost of proceedings, and that he had only come into Court as a last resort.

   His Lordship then gave judgment to the amount with all costs, to be enforced forthwith.  His Lordship observed that interest was not usually allowed, but under the circumstances that the defendant had withheld payment for so long and did not come forward, the Court gave at the rate of 5 per cent.

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