Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Fau Chong v. Beattie, 1877

[enforcement of judgments]

Fau Chong v. Beattie

Civil Summary Court, Shanghai
Mowat, May 1877
Source: The North China Herald, 12 May 1877

 

SUMMARY OF NEWS.

   Tuesday, at the Supreme Court, before R.A. Mowat., Esq., Acting Assistant Judge, Fau-chong sued John Beattie, owner and master of the lorcha Soochow, to recover Tls. 100, balance of account for building a deck-house on that vessel. ; and $124.29 price of an anchor, chain, rope, and a ship's bell.  Plaintiff was represented by Mr. G. Darke, and defendant appeared in person. - The accounts were disputed altogether by defendant; and, after statements on both sides, which were very conflicting, the case was adjourned for the attendance of Fau-chong himself, with whom the defendant said he had exclusively dealt. - On Friday after an examination of the deck-house which was the subject of dispute, the plaintiff's claim was reduced from Tls. 100 to Tls. 85, and judgment was given for this sum and for the $124.29 claimed on other account, with costs.  [See also Law Reports, 12 May, Supreme Court.]

 

Source: The North China Herald, 26 May 1877

CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.

Shanghai, May 18th

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.

FAU-CHONG v. JOHN BEATTIE.

   This was an adjourned judgment summons, time having been given the defendant to enable him to satisfy the plaintiff's claim against him, of Tls. 85 and $141.61, together with Court costs now amounting to $18.37.

   Defendant, in answer to questions, now said he had partially settled the claims, and if he was allowed till Monday or Tuesday next, he could settle them altogether.  If he sailed before those days, he would leave a man to settle them for him.

   Mr. DARKE, who again represented the plaintiff, said he was not satisfied with that statement.

   His HONOUR asked defendant if he could give the name of the man who would settle the matter for him in case he left?

   Defendant replied that he could not give the man's name now, because it was a private affair; but he would send him to the Court if he (defendant) left the port before Monday.  He had not mentioned anything of this proposal to the plaintiff before coming into Court, either as to who the man was, or in  what way his (defendant's) hopes of being enabled to pay the money would b4 accomplished.

   His HONOUR said he thought defendant should have informed plaintiff of all this, and especially who the man was.  Was defendant prepared to pay anything now?

   Defendant replied that he was not, but would guarantee that the whole amount should be paid between to-day and Monday.

   His HONOUR said the case seemed to be taking up much time without getting any nearer to a settlement.  It seemed to be of no use whatever adjourning the case.'

   Mr. DARKE said he thought if the case was put off again till Monday, it would not then be any further advanced.  He knew defendant had applied to several parties to advance the money, and that they had refused to do so.

   Defendant further stated that he had seen the man alluded to before coming into Court that morning, and he told him (defendant) that if he did not see him personally, he would send him a cheque that evening.

   His HONOUR - If that is so, I will adjourn the case till tomorrow morning.

   Defendant thought that would be rather hard upon him, and that he ought to be given till Monday.

   His HONOUR said he would not adjourn the case any longer than till tomorrow morning.  Defendant in the meantime could go and see the man, get the money, and bring it to Court at eleven o'clock.

May 21st.

   When this case was before the Court on Friday last, His Honour, who had twice previously adjourned it for the convenience of the defendant, further allowed him until Saturday morning to find the money due on the judgment summonses against him.  At the appointed time on Saturday defendant appeared and asked for a further extension of a day to procure the money; he thought gentlemen he knew would be security for him or lend him money on the lorcha.  His Honour acceded ton his request, but defendant still failed to obtain the money, and, this morning, on the application of the plaintiff, an execution order was grated.

   On the 22nd the money was paid to the Sheriff's officer.

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