Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Tong Fah v. Nethersole, 1876

[goods sold and delivered]

Tong Fah v. Nethersole

Civil Summary Court, Shanghai
Mowat, 11 March 1876
Source: The North China Herald, 16 March 1876

 

CIVIL SUMMARY COURT

Shanghai, March 11th

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.

TONG-FAH v. HENRY NETHERSOLE.

   Plaintiff sued to recover $24.25, for goods sold and delivered.

   Defendant said he owed $20.75, the balance, $3.50, he disputed as being overcharges for a rug and a roll of matting.

   Plaintiff's shopman appeared, and according to his statement it seemed that defendant had received a better description of matting than he considered had been supplied, and that, therefore, the price charged for it was a proper one.   Witness could not speak as the the value of the rug; and his master, who sold it to defendant, was absent in Ningpo, and could not be called to rebut defendant's assertion.

   Defendant said he was sure the charge for the rug was 42.50 too much.

   His HONOUR, after some consideration, said he would take $2.50 of the bill on account of the rug, because the plaintiff was not present to contradict defendant's statement, and the witness knew nothing about it.  But it appearing that defendant had been supplied with a better sort of matting, the charge for that would be taken as being right.  The judgment would therefore be for plaintiff, for $21.75, and costs.

   Defendant, in reply to questions as to how he could pay the money, said he was only an apprentice, at wages of $40 per month, out of which he had to pay $30 for board and lodging, and also other expenses.

   His HONOUR ordered him to pay $5 per month to plaintiff.

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