Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Minor Cases China 1877

The North China Herald, 4 January 1877

U.S. CONSULATE-GENERAL.

Shanghai, December 27th.

Before J. C. MYERS, Esq., Consul-General.

UNITED STATES v. ROBERT GRACEY.

Theft of Turkeys.

   Prisoner was charged with having appropriated to his own use two turkeys the property of M. W. Murphy, of the American Sailors' Home.

   The evidence was to the effect that the turkeys were taken from a cage on the premises of Mr. Murphy about 12 o'clock on the night of the 24th, and that the prisoner took them on the lorcha Hindoo, the same night, and presented them to the Captain.  Prisoner in answer to the charge before his arraignment, admitted that he was alone when he took the turkeys.

   The Court found him guilty, and sentenced him to thirty days' imprisonment with hard labour.

 

The North China Herald, 11 January 1877

U.S. CONSULATE-GENERAL.

Shanghai, Jan . 5th.

Before J. C. MYERS, Esq., Consul-General.

JOHN DAWSON v. E. W. BLACKWOOD.

Alleged Assault.

    Prisoner was charged with having assaulted the prosecutor, who is the proprietor of the international Hotel, in the Woosung Road, Hongkew.

   On the previous day, prisoner was drinking at the Hotel, when he became abusive, and he was requested to leave.  Refusing to do so, the prosecutor attempted to eject him.  Thereupon prisoner became violent, and struck the prosecutor, but did not inflict any injuries.  A policeman was called, and prisoner was given into custody.

   Prisoner expressed regret for what he had done, and hoped the Court would look over the affair.

   The COURT reprimanded him, and granted him liberty on payment of the costs.

CHANG AH PING v. JOHN McGINLEY

   Prisoner, who is a discharged seaman from the United States war-vessel Ashuelot, was charged with having violently assaulted the prosecutor, who for the last thirteen months has been bar-boy and cook at the Hongkew Tavern.

   The evidence was to the effect that between five and six o'clock on Thursday evening, prisoner went to the Hongkew Tavern, and asked to see the prosecutor, with whom he had previously had some angry words.  Being informed that the prosecutor was in the cook-house, he went to him, and struck him three times on the face, blackening and swelling his eye and cutting his lip.  Prisoner then walked away, but was shortly afterwards given into the custody of the police.

   Prisoner represented that the prosecutor had a notorious reputation for ill-using sailors, and that when the previous landlord had the Tavern, he was kept there solely for that purpose.  Prosecutor had often abused him, and when he went into the cook-house he (prosecutor) rushed at him like a tiger, and afterwards scratched hid neck.  He had been in Shanghai several months, and defied the police, or any citizen, to say he had offended even a worm.

   The Police said prosecutor bore a good character.  They had no complaints of his violence.

   The COURT disbelieved that the prisoner was the quiet inoffensive man he had represented himself to be, and sent him to prison for ten days, with hard labour.

 

The North China Herald, 1 February 1877

LAW REPORTS

CIVIL SUMMARY COURT              

Shanghai, Jan. 24th.

Before R.  A. MOWAT, Esq.

J. E. COATES v. A.  G. MERRILEES.

   This was a claim for Tls. 60 due for rent of the house No. 10, Seward Road, for the months of November and December last.

   Defendant acknowledged his indebtedness, and said he had been utterly unable to pay the money, owing to a succession of adverse circumstances.

   Plaintiff said he should not have brought defendant to the Court if he had paid him $28 which he had received from a sub-tenant of a portion of the house.

   A verdict was entered for the amount claimed with costs.

   Plaintiff did not press for payment, and said he was willing to wait to give the defendant an opportunity to improve his monetary affairs.

C.  R. ENGLAND v. THOMAS REED.

   Plaintiff sued as the executor of the estate of Hugh Sutherland, and the claim was for $20 money due to the estate on a promissory note dated the 16th of May, 1876.

   Defendant did not appear, and the Usher having proved the service of the summons, a verdict was entered for the amount claimed with costs.

H. IVEY v. E. MACKINTOSH.

   Plaintiff was formerly third engineer on the C. N. Co.'s str. Foochow, and he sued the defendant to recover $12,  four days' wages.

   Plaintiff stated that on the night of the 4th inst. the steamer was at Shanghai.  He came ashore and overslept himself, and was left behind.  When he came ashore he was not aware that the steamer would leave so soon, no orders having been given by the Captain.  If he had not overslept himself he should have gone on board at twelve o'clock.

   Defendant stated that he engaged the plaintiff on the 19th of last month, telling him that if he gave satisfaction he could stop three months.  Plaintiff was on trial, and consequently his name was not on the articles.  His wages were paid up to the end of December, and it was entirely his own fault that he lost the situation.  Plaintiff had done the same thing twice in the china Merchants' Company's service, and it would be exceedingly hard on a company if they had to pay wages to a man whose conduct might have detained the steamer.

   His HONOUR,  said that from the wages being at so  much a month, and the quota for December being paid on the 31st, it seemed the engagement was at least a monthly one till the three months' trial had elapsed - certainly it was not one from day to day.  And the rule in monthly engagements was that if the servant were properly dismissed during the month, he could claim nothing for the portion of the month he had served.  It appeared that he was so dismissed, and he therefore was entitled to nothing.

   Judgment was entered for the defendant.

 

 

The North China Herald, 1 February 1877

U.S. Consulate-General

Shanghai, Jan. 30th.

Before J. C. MYERS, Esq. Consul-General.

Fracas in a Chinese Store.

   WILLIAM ABBOTT, a sailor of the Golden State, was charged with wilfully breaking the window of a Chinese store at Hongkew, and with assaulting the shopmen.

   It was alleged that the prisoner and two other men broke the window of the store, and when asked to pay the damage they refused.  Prisoner was violent, and brandished a knife, cutting one of the shopmen slightly on the hand.

   In defence, prisoner denied breaking the window wilfully.  It was done accidentally by one of his companions, and he volunteered to pay for it.  The shopkeeper demanded more than he offered to give, and refusing to pay, a large number of Chinese congregated outside.  He drew his knife to frighten them, but did not use it.

   He was ordered to pay 80 dents for the damage done, and the costs of the Court.

   EDWARD MURCH, one of the men who was with Abbott, charged with complicity in the offence, was discharged.

 

The North China Herald, 8 February 1877

LAW REPORTS

CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.

Shanghai, Feb. 5th.

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.

WATSON & Co. v. Mrs. M. L. KING.

   This was a judgment summons for the defendant to show cause why she had not paid a debt of $99.75, in compliance with the judgment of the Court made on the 15th of November last.

   Mr. SKEELS examined the defendant, who acknowledged that she had recently earned money by nursing, but instead of paying it to the plaintiffs, she had handed it over to her landlord in part liquidation of the amount she owed him for rent.  She had four children in England, who were dependent upon her, and she had not been able to send them money for some time.  She owed other debts in Shanghai, and was willing to pay them all when she had the means.  At present she had only what she made by lodgers, to live upon.  She had not transferred her furniture to a lodger since the judgment was obtained in November.  She had no prospect of earning any money except by her lodgers, as her health was impaired and she was unable to work.

   On behalf of the plaintiffs it was urged that defendant had been guilty of contempt of Court by paying another creditor when they had a judgment against her.  They asked for her earnings to be attached.

   His HONOUR said he could not do that in this case.  All he could do was impress on the defendant that she had acted very wrongly in paying her landlord in defiance of the judgment against her, and when she obtained employment she would have to pay off a portion of the plaintiffs' debt.  The law compelled her to pay that first, and the order of the Court was a sufficient answer to her other creditors when they asked her for money.  All he could do was impress on the defendant the necessity of paying the plaintiffs as soon as she could.  They were entitled to be paid first, and he hoped she would take notice of what he had said.

 

The North China Herald, 15 February 1877

CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.

Shanghai, Feb. 6th.

Before R.  A. MOWAT, Esq.

YA-SING v. T. W. MAITLAND.

   This was a claim for $11, doe goods sold and delivered.

   Defendant contended that he was only indebted to the amount of $7, on the ground that he had paid $4 to an agent of the plaintiff's.

   His HONOUR, after hearing the evidence, entered judgment for the amount claimed, with costs.  The so-called agent (who had died since) appeared to be only a customer of the plaintiff's, and there was no evidence that the plaintiff had ever authorised the defendant to make the payment to him, if it had been made.

 

The North China Herald, 22 February 1877

CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.

Shanghai, Feb. 20th.

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.

H. J. SKEELS v. H. B. MILLER.

   Plaintiff sued as the liquidator of the firm of Messrs. Watson & Co.  The claim was for $30 due on a promissory note, dated the 9th of November, 1875, together with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum.

   The promissory note was acknowledged by the defendant, who said he had paid $33 into Court, $30 as the amount of the claim, without interest, and $3 costs.

   Plaintiff was dissatisfied with this amount.  The money was tendered him only five minutes before the case was called on; and he wanted the interest.

   His HONOUR said the note was payable a month from date - on the 9th of December, 1875; and on an overdue promissory note interest was payable.

   Defendant replied that the note said nothing about interest on the face of it, and he thought he could show by two questions to the plaintiff that he (plaintiff) was not entitled to interest.

   Plaintiff examined by defendant - The note was given for a debt you owed the firm of Watson & Co.  On the bill-head of the firm there was nothing about the debtor having to pay interest.

   Defendant said under those circumstances it was plain no interest could be claimed.

   His HONOUR said the claim was on a promissory note which took the place of the original bill, and, the note being overdue, interest was payable from the 9th of December, 1875, its due date.

   Defendant then disputed the rate of interest claimed, and

   His HONOUR decided to allow 8 per cent, in accordance with the custom of the Court.

   Judgment was accordingly entered for the amount paid into Court together with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum, amounting to $2.80, from the 9th of December, 1875, to date.

 

The North China Herald, 22 February 1877

CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.

Shanghai, Feb. 12th.

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.

KOO-AH-SZE v. A. FULLER.

   This was a claim for $7 for wages.

   Defendant is a publican at Woosung, and plaintiff had been his houseboy.  Plaintiff wished to leave his situation before the Chinese new-year to spend the holiday with his relatives, and defendant gave him $4, the amount of wages he alleged was owing.  Subsequently his suspicions of the plaintiff's honesty were aroused, and on searching his box several small articles were discovered.  In consequence he took the $4 from the plaintiff, who now sued for the full month's wages.

   Plaintiff protested that the articles found in his box were his own.

   His HONOUR entered a verdict for $4 without costs, and ordered the money to be detained in Court pending the result of a charge in the Mixed Court against the plaintiff for stealing the articles belonging to the defendant.

FU-KEE v. F. A. GROOM.

   Plaintiff sought to recover $99.99 for commission on a sale of land.

   Defendant denied his liability.

   Plaintiff, who could only speak a little Pidgin English, bring unable to satisfactorily explain the particulars of his claim, his Honour adjourned the hearing until Monday next for the production of an interpreter. [see below, Feb. 19th]

Feb. 14th.

Mrs. PATERSON v. GEORGE FORD.

   This was a claim for $60 for wages for the month of February.

   Defendant acknowledged his indebtedness to the amount of $12, but against this he said he had a set-off for board and lodging for the plaintiff and her husband.

   Plaintiff deposed that the defendant was the proprietor of an hotel in Hongkew.  On the 1st of January he engaged her as manageress.  No agreement was made, and the amount of salary was not mentioned.  At the end of the month defendant gave her $60 for her month's services and asked her to stay with him another month.  She promised to do so.  Five or six days afterwards she went out for a short time in the afternoon.  Defendant gave her [permission to go.  When she returned, one of the boys told her that defendant had been saying something against her during her absence.  She complained to the defendant of this, explaining to him that it would have been much better if he had spoken to her instead of to the boy behind her back.  Defendant only said, "it is my business, the house belongs to me."  She told him she was the manageress and that he had promised not to interferer with anything in the bar.  While she was out defendant had ordered the chair she had been accustomed to use to be taken away.  She asked him for it and he told her she could not have it, and commenced to swear.  She told him, as the manageress, she was entitled to the chair, and he replied "that if I liked I could leave, and he would pay me for the few days of the month."  She objected to this, and demanded a month's wages.  He declined her request and she went away.

   Defendant said the plaintiff had not fully explained how the bother originated.  She had been in the habit of having a glass of "Old Tom" in the morning, and a bottle of stout to breakfast without giving credit for it, and that upset his check on the China boys as to what was sold and what had to be accounted for.  He had dismissed one of the China boys for dishonesty, and plaintiff was vexed because he had done so; and she was also vexed because she thought he wanted one of the boys to keep a check on her.  She was very violent about the chair, talked of shooting him with a revolver, and threatened to smash his head with a bottle.  She ordered him to leave his own house, and then he dismissed her.  There was no agreement between them.  She was to have $60 per month or $2 per day as long as she stopped with him.  The set-off was for a fortnight's board and lodging for the plaintiff and her husband before the opening of the hotel.

   Plaintiff said she was doing the defendant's work during this time.

   Mr. Maguire was called, but he knew little about the affair.  He only heard plaintiff threaten to break the defendant's head with a bottle.

   Defendant said he asked the plaintiff to go up stairs until her temper cooled down, but she refused and used bad language.

   Plaintiff said she should have gone up stairs if she could have got to her room, but defendant had ordered the door to be locked.

   Defendant said this was after he had discharged her.

   His HONOUR said it appeared to him that the plaintiff had in the first instance discharged herself from the defendant's service.  But if even that were not so, she certainly merited dismissal from the language she used towards her employer in ordering him out of his bar-room and threatening to break his head with a bottle.  In either view she was not entitled to more than the sum offered, $12.

   Defendant, on the suggestion of the Court, said he would withdraw his set-off for board and lodgings.

   A verdict for $12 was entered, without costs.

   Notice of appeal was given.

 

The North China Herald, 8 March 1877

GERMAN CONSULATE.

Shanghai, March 3rd.

Before Dr. KRAUEL, Acting Consul.

The Tea Robbery from the "John Potts."

   JULIUS FREDERICK MAUER, alias BROWN, was brought up on remand, charged with stealing nine chests, containing 540-lbs. of tea from the British barque John Potts.

   Evidence of the facts connected with the robbery (which have already been published) having been given, prisoner was committed for trial.

 

The North China Herald, 29 March 1877

LAW REPORTS.

CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.

Shanghai, March 13th.

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.

HALL & HOLTZ v. F. A. GROOM.

   This was an action to recover $20.25 for goods sold and delivered.  It was originally heard on the 5th inst., in the absence of the defendant, when a verdict was entered for the amount claimed with costs.  On the defendant's application, supported by affidavit to the effect that his absence was not wilful and that he believed he had a good defence to the claim, the case was now re-heard.

   HENRY DYER, one of the partners in the firm of Hall and Holtz, repeated that the debt was for goods supplied in the latter part of 1874, and January 1875.  Payment had been asked for, but defendant had not settled the account.

   Defendant alleged that there was a clear and distinct understanding with the plaintiffs, at the time the goods were supplied, that they were to be charged to the account of the late Mr. Dow, with whom he was living at the time.

   This was  denied on the part of the plaintiffs, but it was admitted that a few items had been transferred from the defendant's account to that of Mr. Dow, when they had received specific instructions from the defendant to make the transference.,

      Defendant said he had had two settlements of his accounts with the plaintiffs while the dispute in reference to the present amount had been pending.  If he was uncertain of the understanding he had spoken of, he would not for a moment have fought such a trivial matter in the way he was doing.  It was unfortunate for him that all the papers relating to the estate of Mr., Dow had been sent home, because what he asserted had now to be proved by the plaintiffs' own books, and they showed some items has been transferred from his to Mr. Dow's account.

   A great deal of correspondence, which had passed between the parties, was read, and plaintiffs produced their ledgers and otter books, numbering in all seventeen, (which defendant had required them to produce) with the view to the full investigation of the accounts.

   His HONOUR, after hearing both sides at great length, thought the plaintiffs had not been given to understand that they were to charge Mr. Dow with the amount, and gave judgment for the $20.254 claimed with costs.

JIM & CO. v. A. FULLER.

   Plaintiff, a butcher, sued to recover from defendant, keeper of the Railway Hotel, at Woosung, the sum of $32.18, for meat supplied.

   Defendant said he could not pay now; trade had been so b ad in consequence of China New-year, that during the last month he did not take $20 in the Hotel.  He had chits against people amounting altogether to $2,000; but, for the same reason, he could not obtain payment, and if he were to press the debtors, or sue them in Court, they would not come to see him at all.  The sum sued for was a balance; he had paid plaintiff $13 in January, and had offered him $15 off the sum left owing, but he would not take it.

   Plaintiff said the defendant offered him nothing, until after the summons was issued.  The total debt had been owing for four months, and defendant had paid nothing for three months, although he (plaintiff) had gone to Woosung to ask for payment.

   His HONOUR gave judgment for plaintiff, with costs; payment to be made on the 10th of April.

March 23rd.

SUN CHEONG v. W. ROBERTS.

   Plaintiff sued to recover $33.40, balance of account for goods sold and delivered.

   Defendant admitted the debt, but said he was unable to pay at present.  He owed plaintiff $84, and a few days ago paid him $50 on account.  Defendant had been captain of a tow-boat, and had dealt at the plaintiff's store for a long time, at times paying him $100 per month for goods; but the boat being laid up, he was out of employ for a couple of months, and so got into plaintiff's debt.  He obtained employment as mate on the 1st of the present month, and drew his first month's wages in order to pay the money to plaintiff, at the same time offering him a promissory note for the balance, but hew would not wait, and sued at once.  Plaintiff should have been content with the promissory note.

   His HONOUR said he had been told that before.  A promissory note was not money; plaintiff's creditors would not take defendant's promissory note in payment of the debts due them.  A promissory note was only so much paper, and was a convenient thing to sue upon, but that was about all.  It was not reasonable to expect the plaintiff to be content with one.

   Defendant, in reply to further questions, said he was only getting $50 per month wages, and had other creditors to pay, besides his board bill.  He had also to keep a house on shore.

   Plaintiff said the money had been owing half-a-year.  He produced his bill.

   His HONOUR examined the bill, and said it showed there was a balance due at the end of December for $84.

   Defendant said that the debt of $84 was only incurred during December.  He had dealt with the plaintiff for two years, and had obtained most of the things he wanted, as Captain of the tow-boat, from him.

   His HONOUR said plaintiff was entitled to an execution against any goods defendant had.'

   Defendant - I have other bills to pay.'

   His HONOUR - I must point out to you that it is not a question of other bills at all.  When you are ordered by this Court to pay one creditor, you must pay him first.  Will not the Captain of your boat advance you this money on April account?

   Defendant replied in the negative.  His was quite willing to pay all he could per month.

   His HONOUR - Well, I will make this order, that on the last day of April you shall pay the full amount, with costs.

   Defendant - I offered him the promissory note to enable him to draw the money himself.  He could have got the same security without bringing me before the Court in this way.'

   His HONOUR - I cannot help that.  He would not take your promissory note.  From your own statement you have other people to pay, and he comes here first, and gets the judgment of the court.

   Judgment for plaintiff, as above stated.

                                                                SAYLE AND CO. v. T. W. MAITLAND.

   Plaintiffs sued to recover $68.45, balance of account for goods supplied in 1874.

   Defendant did not appear.

   Plaintiff proved the debt, and stated that the defendant had received Tls. 300 the day after the summons was issued, and was therefore was able to pay the debt.

   His HONOUR made an order for immediate payment; and, on plaintiffs' application, directed a judgment summons to be served on defendant with the order.

March 26th.

Judgment Summonses.

YA-SING - T.  W. MAITLAND.

   The original summons was for $11, claim for goods sold and delivered.  The cost of the summons, and of subsequent proceedings, had now raised the amount to $18.  Judgment against the defendant was obtained on the 6th February inst., and he was now summoned to explain why he had not paid the money.'

   His HONOUR - Judgment was obtained against you on the 6th February.  Why have you not paid the money?

   Defendant - I have not paid it, but I can raise the two or three dollars to pay it with.

   His HONOUR   - But you have not money of your own now?

   Defendant - I have not got a cent in the world just now.

   His HONOUR - You received money a few days ago - what have you done with it?

  Defendant - I paid part of the amount I owe.

   His HONOUR - Who did you pay bit to?

   Defendant (hesitating) - I do not know now; I lost a large amount of the money I received.

   His HONOUR - What amount did you receive from Mr. Cooper?

   Defendant - I received $189.'

   His HONOUR - When?

   Defendant - About eight, or nine, or ten days ago?

   His HONOUR - Was it not during last week?

   Defendant - I think it was last Monday.

   His HONOUR - Where did you receive it?

   Defendant - It was paid me at the Consulate.

   His HONOUR - At that time there was an order of the Court against you for $16.  Did you comply with that order?

   Defendant - No.

   His HONOUR - You had not lost the money then. You received the money in one room of this building, and all you had to do was go into another and pay the money - or you might have laid it to plaintiff himself, it did not matter where you paid it.  I want to understand how it is that, with so much money in your possession a week ago, you have not paid this claim, and complied with the order of the Court?  Why, with $189 in your locket, you did not pay $16?

   Defendant - Directly I got the money, I was no sooner outside, than I had eight or ten parties, to whom I owed small amounts, after me.  I did not owe either of them much, but altogether it came to a large sum.

   His HONOUR - Well, how do you mean you lost some of it - paying money to people is not losing it.

   Defendant - I do not know how it was lost, but I did lose it.  I did not spend much of nit.  Whatever things I have got, I am willing to give -

   His HONOUR - I do not want to know anything about your things.  I want to know what you have done with that money, and why you have not satisfied the order of this court.  You say you have paid it away to other people.  Now tell me the names and addresses of those people, and the amounts you paid them.

   Defendant - I have paid two or three parties.

   His HONOUR - I want to know who they are.

   Defendant - It was for things I had purchased.

   His HONOUR - That is not telling me who they are.  You surely can remember to whom you paid money.

   Defendant, after some hesitation,  said - One was Nu-kee, a storekeeper in Hongkew, near the Oriental Tavern.  I do not know the amount I paid him; it was not a great deal.  It was for several small articles, socks and tobacco, and other things I purchased of him.

   His HONOUR - Then it was not a bill you owed him before?

   Defendant - No, it was for just a few little things I wanted.  I paid some outstanding bills too.

   His HONOUR - What were the amounts?

   Defendant - I cannot say what the amounts were, but I know several of the names.

   His HONOUR - Not say what amounts of money you pay away in so short a time?  I am informed that you have been in liquor all the time since you received the $189.

   Defendant - No, I have not been in liquor all the time.

   His HONOUR - Were you quite sober when you received the money?

   Defendant - yes; it was between three and four o'clock in the afternoon, when I received it.  I did not go down to see the man then.

   His HONOUR - What did you do that night?

   Defendant - I cannot say.

   His HONOUR - I take it that you received the sum of $189 on Monday last, that you have since spent or lost all that money, that you have been in drink a considerable part of the time since, [and have] been spending the money in brothels, [so] I am informed.  Is that so?

   Defendant - I have [been] in one or two such houses, but the amount I have spent or lost in those places is not much.

   His HONOUR - Where were you when you were drunk?  The Police did not pick you up.  What houses were you in?  You must have been somewhere out of sight.  When  the drunkenness passed off, where did you find yourself.

   Defendant - I was in certain houses, in Hongkew and in French town.

   His HONOUR - And you lost all your money there, I suppose.  What means have you of paying this judgment order now?

   Defendant - I have no property, but I can get a few dollars in small amounts - $14 or $16 - and pay off accordingly.

   His HONOUR - Where is this money to be got from?

   Defendant - From one or two parties I know - a small amount from one and a small amount from another.

   His HONOUR - Why did you not do this before?  The judgment has been recorded ever since the 6th February.

   Defendant  at first replied that he did not know.  He afterwards said - Because I was  notified that the Inspector-general of Customs would allow me four months' pay, 240 Haikwan taels, in consideration of my service in the Customs.  When I left Chinkiang I left instructions with Mr. Stronach to pay my debts there, which he did.  There is one bin dispute, about $23.40, and Mr. Cooper stroll holds the money. - His furniture at Chinkiang, he added, had been sold, and he believed Mr. Walker had paid that debt of 423.40 out of the proceeds, but he had only Mr. Walker's word for it.  If it was paid, there would be that amount coming to him, and out of it the plaintiff could be paid.

   His HONOUR - I shall adjourn this case till to-morrow morning, at ten o'clock, and by that time I shall see whether there is any money forthcoming.  If not, and you do not being it from somewhere, it will be my duty to send you to prison.  I think it is a most scandalous case - perfectly disgraceful.  These steps nave been brought in by your now misconduct.  You must appear here tomorrow, and in the meantime see if your friends will find the money for you - if they have sufficient confidence in your statements they probably will; but whether they do or not, you must appear here tomorrow, at ten.

SAYLE & CO. v. T.  W. MAITLAND.

   This was also a judgment summons, the amount claimed being $68.45.

   Plaintiff wished to know what defendant had done with the balance of $189 our if the Haikwan taels 240 he had received, and thought he should be called upon to give an account of what he had done with the money.

   Defendant - I have given as fair a statement as I can.

   Plaintiff - That you have not done.  You have simply accounted for a very few dollars.  You have not stated where or when you list the money, or in fact, what became of it at all.

   Defendant - I can give no further statement than I have given to His Honour.

   Plaintiff - How do you propose to pay our $68.45?

   Defendant - I cannot say just now, without thinking it over.  I will give you an answer then.

   Plaintiff - But you are summoned here for that very purpose, to give an explanation.

   Defendant - It is partly the fault of your firm in letting the account run on so long.

   Plaintiff - Yes, that is where the mistake has been.  We should like to know what you mean to do? Do you mean to pay the money?

   Defendant - You have come upon me too suddenly, there are other people -

   His HONOUR - I cannot allow that argument to be used.  You (defendant) must confine yourself to the plaintiff's case.  There are two judgment creditors who have obtained judgments against you, and you must confine yourself to the one now before the Court.

   Plaintiff - I suppose you will promise to pay Sayle and Co., next to the first judgment, before you pay anybody else?

   Defendant - Yes; I will tell you what I will do.  If Mr. Wainewright will take up a case for me, I will give him an order to pay the money.  I have money, but I have not got it here.  I believe I can make arrangements that will be satisfactory to me creditors.  I believe the Consul knows I have means, but they are not available now.

   Plaintiff - He has promised to pay us after paying the first judgment summons.  I think that is all that can be done now.

   His HONOUR - At the time you obtained judgment on Friday, he had got through all his money.

   Defendant - I came here von Saturday, and explained to you (His Honour) why I did not come to Court on Friday.

   His HONOUR - It is not a question of what occurred on Friday or Saturday.  You received the balance of your money on the previous Monday, and you ought to have paid these debts then.  However, you must come here again tomorrow, and we shall then see what is to be done.

  Defendant - It is rather a short time.

   His HONOUR - I cannot help that; it is your own fault.

YA-SING v. T.  W. MAITLAND.

   This case was heard on the previous day, and adjourned to this morning to afford the defendant an opportunity to procure the amount of money of the judgment summons against him.

   In answer to His Honour, defendant said he had been unable to get the money, but when he obtained his property from Edbrook's he thought he could get it.

   His HONOUR - I don't want to know any-thing about your property at Edbrook's; I quite understand what that means.  I understood you to say yesterday that if a short time was given you, you could get the money from your friends.

   Defendant - I thought I could get it but the time I have had was very short.

   His HONOUR - Shanghai is a small place, and in a few hours you could see all your friends.

   Defendant - I should like to see the consul about the money I am expecting from Chinkiang.

   His HONOUR - We have heard nothing about that money except your own statement, and it is a question whether your statement in true or not.  I have inquired of the Consul, and he tells me he has received no information about it.

   Defendant thought there had not been sufficient time for the Consul to hear anything about it.  There would no doubt be one or two steamers in from Chinkiang in a day or two, and then the information might arrive.

   His HONOUR - I will give you more time to get the money, and adjourn the case until ten o'clock on Thursday morning, when it will be finally disposed of.  [No further report found.]

 

The North China Herald, 12 April 1877

LAW REPORTS

CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.

Shanghai, April 9th.

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.

  1. FULLER v. H. J. POYNTON.

   This was a claim for $87.50, due for seven months' board.

   Defendant acknowledged owing the money.

   Hs HONOUR entered judgment for the amount claimed, with costs.

   Defendant, on being asked how he could pay the money, said he was not in a position to pay anything at present.  He had been out of employment for fifteen months, but was at present looking after a grogshop in Hongkew, belonging to Mr. Symons, a pilot.  For doing this, he received no wages, only his board.  Symons was an American citizen.

   Plaintiff said he could not say whether the house belonged to defendant or to Symons.

   Defendant stated that the house was bought from Mrs. Mills in October by Symons, who then put him in too look after it.  He had not received any money since, nor had he any interest in the business.  He had no written agreement with Symons.

   Plaintiff asked defendant who paid the bills of the house?

   Defendant replied that he paid the bills on account of the house - for liquor, &c.

   Plaintiff thought it strange that defendant, who said he was receiving no wages, should be permitted to pay the bills, especially as Symons was in Shanghai twice a month.

   His HONOUR saw nothing strange in that.  Defendant was put in charge, and it was natural that he should be authorised to pay and account for expenses.  Plaintiff, if he thought proper, could question Symons as to the truth of defendant's statements.

   It was stated that Symons was piloting the French mail between Shanghai and Hongkong, and that he would be in Shanghai on Wednesday.'

   His HONOUR said he thought that was all that could be done, as defendant seemed to be without the means of payment.

   Plaintiff thought it hard that he could not get his money, especially as it was not only this debt, defendant owing him $191 besides.

   His HONOUR could not help it; plaintiff brought defendant to Court at a time when he was in b a situation for which he received no wages.  He (plaintiff) had better wait and see Symons, and then ask him about the defendant's position.  His Honour did not think Symons would wish to screen the defendant.

   Plaintiff - I do not think he would.

 

 

The North China Herald, 21 April 1877

LAW REPORTS

CIVIL SUMMARY COURT

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.

FAU-CHENG v. JOHN BEATTIE [or BAILEY]

   This was a judgment summons for the defendant to show cause why he had not paid Tls. 75 to the plaintiff, in compliance with an order of the Court made in September last.

   Defendant had paid Tls. 10 into Court, which reduced the amount to Tls. 65.

   Defendant pleaded he had been unable to pay the money, but was willing to try to pay Tls. 10 a-month.  He was the owner of a lorcha running to Hankow, but there was a mortgage on it for Tls. 900.

   Plaintiff was willing to accept the defendant's offer to pay Tls. 10 a-month, and His honour made an order to that effect.

April 14th.

FUNG-TAH v. GEORGE BAILEY.

   This was an action to recover $40.80 for goods sold.

   Defendant denied his liability, stating that he ordered the goods for the Wharf Hotel, where he was employed by George Ford, who had possession of the house.

   Ford denied that he had given instructions for Bailey to order the goods, and Bailey admitted that the plaintiff had given credit to him (Bailey).

   His HONOUR said that Bailey, having ordered the goods, must pay for them.  The plaintiff did not know Ford in the transaction, and it was natural that he should look to the person who obtained the goods for payment.

   Bailey said he had no money.  Ford had turned him out of the Hotel, and he had now nowhere to sleep except in coolies' quarters.

   His HONOUR gave judgment for the amount claimed with costs.

April 16th.

THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT v. W. LENT.

   Plaintiffs, represented by the tepaou of the district, sued to recover Tls. 38.40 for ground rent of two separate lots of land.

   Heding, junior, who interpreted, said the claim was made up as follows: - Two years' ground rent of Lot 19068, for 1875-76, at 25,267 cash per annum; and one year's ground rent of another lot, of which he did not know the number, at 7,081 cash per annnum; making a total of 57,615 cash, or Tls. 38.40.  The tax was payable at the beginning of each Chinese New Year.

   Defendant said he objected to pay for one reason because it was not transferred to him until the 5th of March, 1875, and he therefore thought he was not entitled to pay the whole tax for that year; and secondly because a bamboo fence he had erected round it at a cost of Tls. 45, had been carried away bodily by the villagers, and he required the tepaou, who was responsible for their acts, to make it good, and he had not done so.  With respect to the smaller lot, he had no idea that it was not paid.  He went to England about the 18thSeptember, 1875, and had authorised his bankers during his absence to pay all such claims.  He had little doubt he would be able to find the receipt among his vouchers for that year.  The larger lot ceased to be his property on the 31st Dec. 1876; the smaller lot still belonged to him, and he had paid Tls. 5 into Court, as ground rent to the larger lot, he understood that defendant was owner in 18786.  Why did he not pay the ground rent for it for that year?

   Defendant replied because he could never get the tepaou to point out to him where the land was.  It was transferred to him by a Chinaman in March, 1875.

   His HONOUR thought the seller was the proper person to point out the locality.  With reference to the carrying away of the bamboo fence by the villagers, His Honour did not thick that had anything to do with the case, the plaintiff being merely a collector of taxes.  It was the Chinese authorities who were suing, not the tepaou.

   Defendant considered that the tepaou was not the collector of taxes, and that he had nothing to do with the collection.  He was tepaou of the district, and was responsible for the land, and also for the actions of the villagers.  He (defendant) simply refused to pay until the bamboo fence was restored.

   His HONOUR again said he failed to see that that had anything to do with the case.  The ground rent was due to the Chinese Government, and must be paid.

   DEFENDANT SAID IT WAS AN ANOMALOUS POSITION FOR A British subject to be placed in, to be brought into Court and sued for ground rent by the Chinese Government, after he had been told in the Mixed Court that he could not recover for back rent of the same land.

   His HONOUR said he had nothing to do with what has been said in the Mixed Court, and repeated that the ground rent was due to the Chinese Government, and must be paid.  He would, however, adjourn the case till next day, to give defendant an opportunity of finding the receipt he had spoken of;  and for plaintiff to ascertain at what precise time defendant became owner of the larger lot, and also who paid ground rent for it in 1874.

April 17th.

   The case was resumed, this morning, when defendant said he was unable to find the receipt he had mentioned.  As a rule he did not keep his receipts for more than a year, but he did not know whether he had destroyed those for 1875, as he was away from China part of that year.

   The case was eventually settled by

   His HONOUR giving judgment for plaintiff for the full amount claimed, with $3 costs.

JAMES GRIMMER v. J. STANSFIELD.

   Plaintiff claimed $75, for two months and 15 days' board and lodging at the Temperance Hall.

   Defendant admitted the debt, and expressed willingness to pay it; but said he had people dependent upon him at home, and that the captain of the ship he was now mate of could not advance him the money, until he saw how his own expenses would be.

   Plaintiff said the debt had been owing for twelve months, and if defendant went away now, he did not know when he might see him again.  He had seen the captain of the ship, who had said he was short of money; but the defendant had been in employment ever since the debt was incurred, and had not paid anything.

   Defendant said he had been to Australia since then; and repeated that he has people dependent upon him at home.

   His HONOUR entered judgment for plaintiff, and told defendant to ask the captain to call upon him, the first time he was ashore.

 

The North China Herald, 21 April 1877

SUMMARY OF NEWS.

...  On Sunday afternoon, a party of Russian sailors were waiting at the Hankow road jetty for the return of an officer.  A respectable Chinese and his wife were riding along the Bund in a jinrikisha, and on arriving opposite the Russians, one of them walked up to the jinrikisha, and without any provocation struck the woman a blow on the mouth, cutting it, and causing considerable loss of blood.  Complaint was made to the Police; and we hear that the woman had been solaced with a cumshaw of $6, and that the sailor, with two of his shipmates who were in his company at the time, have been taken before the Russian Consular authorities.  All three were sent back to the ship, but there being nothing against two of them, they were allowed to return to their duty.  The man who struck the woman is still under confinement on board, and it is considered likely that he will be again brought up at the Consulate, and sentenced to imprisonment. - Russian seamen who mis-behave themselves on shore, are, it is said, not only punished with great severity on board their shops, but are not allowed to come ashore again.

 

The North China Herald, 28 April 1877

CIVIL SUMMARY COURT               .

Shanghai, April 19th.

Before R. A. MOWAT, Esq.

YIK-KEE v. Mrs. BROWN.

   Plaintiff, a butcher in Hongkew, sued to recover $11.27, for meat supplied in the month of September last.

   Defendant said she had paid the money and did not owe the plaintiff anything.  She had dealt with him from January to December, 1876, and with two exceptions had settled the accounts monthly in a pass-book, comparing the items with the entries in plaintiff's Chinese book, which he read over.  The two exceptions were that the accounts for August and September were paid together in October, and those for October and November in December.

   Plaintiff, through Wing, who interpreted, persisted in his denial that he had received the money, and said he had applied for it several times and was put off.

   Defendant said that was not true, and gave several reasons which she said enabled her to distinctly remember paying the money.  She had no receipts beyond the entries in the pass-book, against each payment being placed a "chop" and the word "paid," both having been always placed there in plaintiff's presence.

   His HONOUR, after a lengthy investigation of the accounts, said there was a mistake on one side or the other, but it was exceedingly difficult to say confidently on which side.  As a rule, the Chinese were accurate book-keepers.

   Defendant said she could assure His Honour that plaintiff was wrong in this instance.

   It was now elicited that -plaintiff claimed payment, as was understood, in December, for September, October, and November, but that defendant refused to pay for more than the two latter months, being certain she had paid for August and September together.

   His HONOUR ultimately directed the -plaintiff to supply the Court with a statement of accounts in English, showing each payment he had received from the defendant, together with the date of each.  As he said before, the Chinese were generally found to be careful book-keepers, and His honour could not imagine that defendant thought plaintiff was endeavouring to impose on her in any way.

   Defendant said she did think so, because she was positive the money was paid.  Plaintiff never used to come to receive his accounts until, she sent for him, and it was not likely she would send for him intending to pay him, and then not pay him.

   His HONOUR said he was perfectly sure that defendant's conviction was that she had paid this money, but he was equally certain that plaintiff honestly believed that the money had not been paid.  The settlement of the case must wait until the plaintiff supplied the account of all the payments made by the defendant to him.

 

Sacramento Daily Union, 2 May 1877

In the United States Consular Court E. B. Watson, a merchant of Yokohama, has sued Walsh, Hall & Co.  for $10,000 damages accruing from alleged delivery of a quantity of bags inferior to those contracted for.  Evidence has been adduced on both sides, and decision is reserved.

 

The North China Herald, 19 May 1877

LAW REPORTS

CIVIL SUMMARY COURT

Shanghai, May 11th.

Before R. A. MOAT., Esq.

KASSBURG & CO. v. LANE, CRAWFORD & CO.

   This was a claim for $99.34, under circumstances detailed below.  Defendants did not appear.

   The USHER stated that he served the summons on an employee of defendants', with the understanding that he would hand it to the senior partner.  He had not seen the employee since, and therefore could not say if the summons had reached the parties sued.

   Mr. KNOOP, of the firm of Knoop & Co., produced a power of attorney, authorising him to act for Mr. Iwerson, of Nagasaki, the trustees in the bankruptcy of Kassburg & Co., who formerly traded at that port, and whose firm is not in liquidation.  Mr. Knoop went on to say that he had been instructed by Mr. Iwerson that he had received an account current from the defendants, in which there were two items to which he objected.

   One if them related to 675-lbs, or 45 casks of beef and pork.  Defendants were creditors of Kassburg & Co., as also were Knoop & Co., and it was at the latter's suggestion that the 45 casks were sent to Nagasaki to the defendants.  The meat was sold at public auction, and the proceeds amounted to more than defendants' actual claim against the estate of Kassburg & Co.  Instead of crediting the overplus to the estate, defendants applied it to the payment of interest on an older debt due to them by Kassburg & Co.  They made a claim for that interest, and to that Mr. Iwerson also objected, making the second item.  Defendants' claim against the estate was $420.  The 45 casks  were handed to them as being the full value of their claim, but, as he had said, they realised more at auction, and instead of handing the surplus to Knoop & Co., they applied it in payment of interest on an old debt of $841, due to them by Kassburg & Co. in August last, but of which $350 had been paid.  Kasssburg & Co. became bankrupt at the end of October last, when there was a balance due to defendants, and against that again, there were shipments of tallow to the value of about $70, and that left defendants' claim against Kassburg & Co;. at $420.  On order to pay off that amount, the 45 casks were sent to them, and they agreed to take them over in payment of their claim, at $15 per cask.

   His HONOUR asked if Mr. Knoop knew all that of his own knowledge, or only from information he had received.

   Mr. Knoop replied that he could not say he knew it all of his own knowledge, but he did some of it.  His firm were creditors of Kassburg & Col to the amount of $15,000, and, on Kassburg & Co.'s bankruptcy becoming known, he himself went over to Nagasaki to see into matters.  It was his proposal that the 45 casks should be sent to the defendants.

   His HONOUR said he was afraid he could not take Mr. Knoop's statement as evidence.  He must have the evidence of some one who knew all about the transactions.

   Mr. Knoop went on to say that the defendants sold the casks by auction, and he contended they had no right to sell them, because they had agreed to take them at $15 per cask, in payment of their claim.  At the sale, however, they fetched more than was expected, and he considered the overplus should have been handed to Knoop & Co., who were the largest creditors,  and by whose consent the casks were sent to defendants, who would otherwise have had to take their chance with the other creditors.

   His HONOUR asked if Mt. Knoop could produce the account of the sale?

   Mr. KNOOP said he could not now, but it might be produced.

   His HONOUR said he must see the account sale, and he would also want evidence of the alleged sale at Nagasaki.

   Mr. KNOOP repeated that his firm were Kassburg & Co.'s largest creditors, all the others added together only amounting to $5,000.  He had applied to defendants for payment of the overplus, but they would not listen to it.

   His HONOUR said he would adjourn the case till two o'clock, for the attendance of Mr. Kassburg and the defendants (who could be summoned as witnesses, if necessary), and the production of the necessary accounts.

   On the gearing being resumed in the afternoon, the defendant apologised for his absence in the forenoon, and explained that the pork was purchased by his firm from Messrs. Kassburg and Company according to sample.  An order was first given for twenty-five casks and a subsequent order for fifteen casks, but in all forty-five casks were sent, Messrs. Kassburg & Company exceeding the latter order by five casks.  Of the forty-five casks, twenty were not according to sample, and for the benefit of Messrs. Kassburg and Company, they sent them to be sold by auction. They did the best they could, and the pork realised a fair price.

   His HONOUR said the matter in dispute seemed to be confined to two items - the deficiency in the price got for the pork at auction as compared with the price it was  alleged to have been sold at, and the excess in the claim for interest.

   Mr. WILSON said that was so.  He produced the account sale and other documents for the inspection of the Court.

   Mr. KNOOP said the pork having been supplied to Messrs. Lane, Crawford and Company in discharge of a debt, when they found it bad it was their duty to have protested against receiving it, or even to have returned it immediately.  Instead of doing this, they had auctioned the pork entirely on their own responsibility without referring to the parties at Nagasaki, which he thought they certainly ought to have done.

   His       HONOUR pointed out that Messrs. Lane, Crawford and Co. had a claim on the estate of Kassburg and Company for something like $400, and, according to Mr. Knoop, the 45 casks of pork were sent in liquidation of their claim, instead of being, as they ordinarily would be, sold for the benefit of all the creditors, of whom Messrs. Knoop were the largest.

   Mr. WILSON thought that was a matter they need not enter into, inasmuch as Mr. Knoop went to Nagasaki to close up Kassburg & Co., and took the whole estate into his own hands.  The pork was sent to them with his consent.

   Mr. KNOOP denied that he took the estate into his own hands;  it was put into the hands of Mr. Flowers, the Consul at Nagasaki, and Mr. Iwerson was appointed trustee.  He gave over his interest in the estate to let everybody else be satisfied in full.  His object was to avoid trouble, and this was the consequence of his kindness.

   Mr. WILSON said it was agreed that they should take payment of their debt in goods; and when the goods were not according to sample, to recoup themselves they thought they were justified in selling the pork by auction.  They had done the very best they could for all parties.

   Mr. KNOOP thought it would have been better if Messrs. Lane, Crawford & Co. had only recouped themselves to the value of their claim, and not sold all the pork.  Why should they sell beyond the claim?  They should have left it alone altogether.

   Mr. WILSON replied that they had accounted for every cent they had received.

   His HONOUR said he should like to know more about the arrangement that had existed between Kassburg & Co. and Messrs. Lane, Crawford & Co.

   Mr. WILSON - The goods were sent to us in payment of our account.  It was before the bankruptcy, and before we had any notification about Kassburg & Co. becoming bankrupts.

   His HONOUR - Then, what about the interest?

   Mr. WILSON - We charged no interest until the final account.  We don't always charge interest; it is a matter of policy for us to waive it at times with customers we want to keep.  We waived it in this instance until we rendered our final account, because of our business connection with Kassburg & Co.  We had not the least idea they were going into bankruptcy when they sent us the pork; and we have not claimed a cent more than we are legally entitled to.  Our usual term's are three months' credit on each invoice, and then we charge interest, that is if we think it will suit us to do so - interest is purely a matter of policy.  On these terms we deal with customers at all the out-ports, and the same applied to this case.  We had a distinct understanding with Kassburg & Co. to this effect; but if they had not been closing business, probably it would have been our policy not to charge them interest.  Any business firm would have acted in like manner.  Mr. Kassburg was now present and would give his version of the transaction, no doubt, if the Court desired it.

   His HONOUR said he was not aware that Mr. Kassburg was present; his evidence would be very important.

   Mr. KASSBURG then deposed that when he was in business he had an understanding with Messrs. Lane, Crawford & Co., that if he did not pay his bills within three months they were to charge interest.  They had never charged him interest, because, he supposed, they wanted to keep his custom.  Mr. Knoop had charged him interest at the rate of 8 per cent., Lane and Crawford's interest he believed was 1 per cent per month.

   Mr. KNOOP said he did not charge interest until his debt had been running over two years.

   His HONOUR asked Mr. Kassburg for some particulars about supplying the pork to lane, Crawford & Co.

   Mr. KASSBURG said he received a telegram from Mr. Harvie, of Lane, Crawford & Co.'s, to send 25 casks of pork at the earliest opportunity, at $15 per cask, to be delivered in Shanghai.  Subsequently he received another telegram ordering 15 casks on the same terms.  Mr. Knoop was then in Nagasaki, and with his consent he shipped 45 casks, 5 more than were ordered.

   Mr. WILSON - 25 casks were sound and 20 were bad, and we did the best we could with them under the circumstances.  They sold for $11 ½ per cask at the auction, and that was a far price.

   His HONOUR - If the goods were to be delivered at $15 per cask, all the charges would of course have to be deducted.

   Mr. KASSBURG repeated that the order was that the goods were to be delivered in Shanghai for $15 per cask.

   In reply to His Honour, Mr. Knoop said the goods were supplied perhaps a few days before he had filed the bankruptcy petition, and that it appeared the charges of transmission would have to be deducted.  He admitted that it was customary for interest to be paid on long outstanding accounts, but he thought the defendants were not entitled to interest in this instance, because they had not charged it originally.

   His HONOUR said that, as to the interest, an account was always open to explanation; and the defendants had explained why they did not charge interest in the first place - before the estate went into bankruptcy.  Interest was recoverable whenever there was a stipulation between the parties that it was to be paid, and there was no doubt that there was such a stipulation in this case; the defendants alleged there was, and Mr. Kassburg admitted it.  He mere fact that the defendants had not charged it in their account rendered on the 31st August, did not, when the circumstances were explained, and when there was no dispute between the original parties on the point, prevent them claiming it now; and if the sum they had worked out was correct - he had no means of ascertaining whether it was correct or not - there was no ground why they should not have it.

   Mr. KNOOP said if His Honour thought defendants were entitled to interest, he as quite willing to let them have it.

   His HONOUR replied that he thought they were entitled to it.  As to the pork, it seemed that the arrangement was that it should be delivered in Shanghai at $15 per cask; and the plaintiff's claim in respect of this matter was therefore reducible by the charges on the 25 casks at all events.  As to the other 20, they actually would seem to have fetched at auction as much as the plaintiffs contended they had been sold to the defendants for, viz., Tls. 11 ½ per cask.  No doubt the out-turn was somewhat less than $15, because auctioneer's commission was deducted in respect of these 20 casks in addition to the ordinary charges of freight, &c., but the difference after all was something very trifling, and it would appear that this was the manner of dealing with the goods that Kassburg himself (with whom alone the defendants were dealing) would have wished to be followed.  Accordingly, after deducting the charges which the defendants were entitled to, and the interest, the defendants had accounted for everything; and therefore judgment would be in their favour.

May 14th.

NIN-CHANG v. A. FERGUSON.

   Plaintiff, described as a market man, sued to recover $99.99, balance of account for goods sold and delivered, as per compradore order dated 10th February, 1876.

      Defendant did not dispute the debt, but said he had made an arrangement with plaintiff to pay him $10 interest for the current year in advance and for a friend of his, an engineer on board the Pluto (who had advanced to plaintiff the amount due on the compradore's order), to receive milk and butter as a set-off.  This man had since received $8.30 worth of those articles, but a few days ago declined to receive any more; and, for some reason, the plaintiff broke though his arrangement, and issued the summons.'   Plaintiff said the $10 paid to him by plaintiff, was for interest for 1876.

   Defendant said id His Honour considered it necessary, he could produce his clerk and compradore to prove that the arrangement was as he had stated.  One proof, he thought, was afforded by the fact that the monthly bills for milk and butter had not been presented to plaintiff's friend, the engineer, form payment, but were being allowed to accumulate against the debt.  Further, plaintiff had said that he was willing to give up the $10, which he would not be likely to do, if as he asserted, the interest was for 1876.

   His HONOUR said he considered defendant's statement was the more probable, and plaintiff must go on under the arrangement made, and wait until nest China New-year for payment of any balance that might at that time be due.  His friend, the engineer, however, or himself, might in the meantime take as much milk and butter as they chose up to the amount due, and the debt would in that way be paid off sooner.

May 15th.

KUH-ZAN-DAH v. J. B. MANSON.

   Plaintiff, a tepaou, claimed $60 from defendant, for work done and labour supplied.

   Defendant denied his liability.

   Plaintiff, through Heding, jun. interpreter, deposed - I am a tepaou.  I claim $60 from the defendant for removing coffins from a piece of land for him.  He employed me to do so.  I have removed the coffins.  Nothing was said about the price to be paid for doing the work.  The usual charge is $3 for each coffin.  There were 20 coffins removed, and that is why I charge $60.  I have applied to defendant for payment, but have not been paid.

   Defendant's statement was to the effect that the land in question was bought by Mr. Evans, the understanding being that the graves were to be removed free of expense to him. Si far as he (defendant) understood the bill of sale, which was in Chinese, it contained nothing about payment for removing the graves; but as he wished them to be removed at once, he told the plaintiff that if he would take them away quickly he would make him a small present.  He offered him $20, which he was at first willing to accept - in fact he told Mr. Spence so, but he had since refused to do so, and issued the summons.  He (defendant) was now quite willing to pay $15 or $20, but he certainly objected to pay $60, especially as some of the coffins were those of children.

   Four documents which he described as bills of sale of the different pieces of land, were produced by defendant and examined by plaintiff, but they turned out to be old Chinese title-deeds, and of course had no stipulation one way or the other about removing the graves.

   His HONOUR said the work had no doubt been done, and it was really a question of what was a reasonable sum to be paid for it.  Did the defendant know what was the usual charge?

   Defendant said he believed the Recreation Fund Trustees paid only $1.50 for removing each grave.  He was quite willing to pay that amount to close the matter up, but certainly not $60.

   His HONOUR asked if plaintiff had removed graves for foreigners previously?

   Plaintiff replied that he had. In the 8th moon last year he removed 70 graves from the race Course, for which Mr. Barnes Dallas paid him at the rate of $3 each, or $210 in all. 

   His HONOUR said if that was so, that would be evidence of what was a reasonable charge.  Was defendant willing to pay whatever sum Mr. Dallas had paid per grave?  If Mr. Dallas had paid $3 per grave, would defendant be content to pay the same?

   Defendant replied in the affirmative.

   His HONOUR said he would enquire of Mr. Dallas what sum was paid for removing the graves from the Race Course, and inform Mr. Manson afterwards. - His Honour, having communicated with Mr. Dallas later in the day, received the following reply from that gentleman:-

I had a large number of coffins removed last year, for which I paid $3 each.  There were several proprietors, so that I cannot tell you, without reference, what amount the tepaou you refer to received; but all were paid at the same rate.

   Judgment was accordingly entered for plaintiff, for $60 and costs.

May 16th.

FAU-CHONG v. JOHN BEATTIE.

   This was a judgment summons for the defendant to show cause why he had not paid the sum of Tls. 85 and $124.29, together with Court costs, in pursuance of an order of the Court made on the 11th inst.

   Defendant said he was unable to pay the plaintiff; he had no money, but he might be able to pay him if he would only give him time.

   His HONOUR pointed out that defendant had not paid off the other judgment plaintiff had against him.  That has been running since September, and defendant had only paid Tls. 20.  Now plaintiff had judgments against him for Tls. 140 and $150.11.

   Defendant was then sworn, and deposed that the lorcha Soochow did not solely belong to him; there was a mortgage on her to the extent of about $900.  When that mortgage was paid off the vessel was his.  He had now only a few dollars in hand.  The lorcha was now about three-quarters full of cargo, and he expected to sail for Hankow during this week - about Friday or Saturday.  He had not received the freight yet, nor could he state what it would amount to.  The bulk of the cargo was cotton, and there were about 200 bales on board.  Previously he believed he had been paid at the rate of about 34 cents a bale for cotton.

   Mr. DARKE, who represented the plaintiff, said if the lorcha went to Hankow it would be two months before she returned.  From Hankow she might go to Ningpo and Wenchow, and then she would be away six or eight months, which was a long time to wait for an outstanding debt.

   Defendant, in answer to His Honour, said he did not think there would be any balance from the freight he should receive after he had paid his sailors' and the vessels' expenses.

   Mr. MILLER, the owner of another lorcha, said he had a mortgage on the Soochow for $900, and a claim for interest amounting to between forty and fifty dollars.  If the Soochow was sold privately she might realise about $3,000, but she would not fetch so much if sold by auction.  He had not money to pay the plaintiffs' claim and add it on his mortgage.  The amount received for fraught for a lorcha like the Soochow for a passage to Hankow, would be about $150, and for the downward passage it generally amounted to about Tls. 300.  There was no profit on the up passage, but the other was nearly all profit - at least Tls. 150 or Tls. 200 of it was.

   His HONOUR said defendant had made two passages to Hankow, and ought certainly to have paid the plaintiff more than he had done.

   Defendant said he had paid other debts.  A Chinaman at Hankow had had an action against him.

'   His HONOUR said defendant had behaved very badly to the plaintiff, who, on the other hand, had treated him with great consideration and leniency.  He expected it would come to the lorcha being sold, and that would be a great pity, as it would ruin the defendant.

   Mr. MILLER said that perhaps the money could be borrowed to pay off the plaintiff's claim.  He thought he could get some one to advance it.

   His HONOUR said it seemed as if defendant did not want to pay, and, of course, if he didn't nay the lorcha would have to be sold, Mr. Miller's mortgage paid off, the plaintiff paid, and the balance handed to him.  As however, it appeared that something might be done between this and Friday, in the way of raising money towards discharging the claim, he would adjourn the further hearing till then.

 

The North China Herald, 12 May 1877

CIVIL SUMMARY COURT.

Shanghai, May 5th.

Before R.  A. MOWAT, Esq.

JOHN SHADGETT v. THOMAS REED

THOMAS REED v. JOHN SHADGETT.

   These were cross actions.  In the first suit John Shadgett, the proprietor of the Oriental Hotel, sought to recover $18 from Reed, the balance of an account; and in the second action, Reed claimed $88 from Shadgett, for wages and the value of goods retained by him.

   As to the claim of $18, Shadgett produced an I.O.U. from the defendant, dated the 19th January, 1877.

   Reed admitted the I.O.U. but contended the amount was nearly all for "drinks" obtained in quantities less than $1 worth.

   Plaintiff alleged that when the I.O.U. was given, defendant knew that it was for money lent, games at billiards, tiffins, and dinners.  He now had no means of supplying a detailed account, as he had handed over the chits to the defendant.

   Defendant protested that the amount was for drinks supplied in glasses ton himself and friends.

   In the second suit, Shadgett denied his liability.

   REED deposed that he was general assistant at the Oriental Hotel, for three months.  Defendant promised to pay him wages, but never mentioned the amount, telling him he was worth a great deal more than he could afford to pay.  He claimed $25 per month, which was at the same rate as his successor was paid; and the balance was for goods belonging to him which were in the defendant's house.

   Defendant denied that he promised to pay the plaintiff any wages, and said that the plaintiff told him he would be very glad to assist him in the business his board only.

   His HONOUR remarked that there was a direct conflict of evidence between the parties on all points. As to the first claim his course was clear; if the amount was for liquors supplied in small quantities, according to past decisions plaintiff could not recover. He would adjourn the case to give Reed an opportunity of producing the original chits that had been returned to him by the plaintiff; they would speak for themselves, as to what they had been given for.  He would want also to have a copy of the accounts between the parties as far as the plaintiff could furnish one.  As to the claim of Reed against Shadgett, His Honour had no doubt how that should be disposed of, but he would not formally decide it till he was prepared to decide the other also.

   Mr. SHADGETT thought he could draw up a statement of accounts in a few days, and Reed said if the case was adjourned he would try to find the chits which would speak for themselves.

   His HONOUR accordingly adjourned the case until Tuesday next.

May 8th.

JOHN SHADGETT v. THOMAS REED

THOMAS REED v. JOHN SHADGETT

   These were adjourned cross actions.  The adjournment was grated to enable Reed to produce the chits, which, as he said, would show that the $18 he was sued for, were for drinks only; and on the other hand for Shadgett to produce a detailed statement of accounts.  Reed had given an I.O.U. for the $18, as being a balance of account due from him to Shadgett.

   On the case being called on this morning, Reed was unable to produce the chits (which he now admitted he had destroyed), but Shadgett put in as complete an account as he could, the chits having been given up to Reed.

   His HONOUR, after spending considerable time in investigating the matters alleged between the parties, gave judgment in the case of Shadgett v. Reed first.  He said it had been decided in the Court on previous occasions that a publican could not recover for liquor unless supplied in certain quantities at a time, and the mere fact of the defendant having given an I.O.U. for the amount would not preclude the Court from enquiring whether the fact was (as the defendant alleged) that the claim was sin fact in respect of what could not be recovered in a Court of law.  But, on the other hand, the mere allegation of the defendant's was not enough, as it was met by a counter-allegation of the plaintiff's, and the chits, which would have spoken for themselves, had been destroyed by the defendant.  Under these circumstances, the Court ought not to presume that the plaintiff's claim was such that he could not recover in respect of it.

   As to Reed's case against Shadgett, that consisted of three separate matters.  First, as to a sum of $2, which Reed alleged belonged to him, and that Shadgett had kept from him.  He (Shadgett) denied that, and  said they were for drinks supplied to the party with whom Reed was engaged at the time.  His Honour would not take up the time of the Court in investigating this matter, especially looking to the nature of the transaction.  As to the goods Reed said Shadgett had of his, why did he not take credit for the $13 he said they were worth when settling accounts, and give Shadgett an I.O.U.  for $5, instead of for $18?  The time of the settlement was the proper time to have done so.  The same observation applied to Reed's claim for wages.  It was not likely that he would allow such a claim to remain dormant for a year and a half, without alluding to it.  Shadgett said Reed was to receive his board only.  Therefore, as he said one thing and Reed said another, His Honour had to look at the probabilities of the case.  Was it probable that Reed would have allowed such a claim to remain standing so long?  Was it probable that, when they were settling up accounts for wages and other matters, Reed would not have mentioned this other claim for wages, and had it settled too?

   Reed, interrupting, said he had applied for payment several times, but had allowed the matter to stand over because he knew the position in which Shadgett was placed.  He did not know how much he was to receive per month, but had based his present claim on the amount he knew his successor had received.

   His HONOUR - You never intended to claim it, that is the fact.  It is only because he sued you that you set this up.  If he had never sued you, do you mean to say that you would have brought such an action against him?

   REED repeated that he had applied for payment several times within the past twelve-month, and he should have sued when he saw what he considered a fitting opportunity.

   SHADGETT produced a letter written him by Reed, which he said he considered had been written by Reed solely with a view to deter him from bringing his action.

   His HONOUR said the result of the actions was that reed would gave to pay Shadgett $18, the balance of account he had himself admitted by signing the I.O.U. for that amount, together with the costs of the Court, $3.  His action against Shadgett fell to the ground.  If what he had said was true, that he had refrained from pressing his own claim against Shadgett for the reasons he had stated, it should be a warning to him for the future to have his claims admitted by the other party at the time, or else to bring his action within a reasonable time.

 

 

The North China Herald, 19 May 1877

LAW REPORTS

CIVIL SUMMARY COURT

Shanghai, May 11th.

Before R. A. MOAT., Esq.

KASSBURG & CO. v. LANE, CRAWFORD & CO.

   This was a claim for $99.34, under circumstances detailed below.  Defendants did not appear.

   The USHER stated that he served the summons on an employee of defendants', with the understanding that he would hand it to the senior partner.  He had not seen the employee since, and therefore could not say if the summons had reached the parties sued.

   Mr. KNOOP, of the firm of Knoop & Co., produced a power of attorney, authorising him to act for Mr. Iwerson, of Nagasaki, the trustees in the bankruptcy of Kassburg & Co., who formerly traded at that port, and whose firm is not in liquidation.  Mr. Knoop went on to say that he had been instructed by Mr. Iwerson that he had received an account current from the defendants, in which there were two items to which he objected.

   One if them related to 675-lbs, or 45 casks of beef and pork.  Defendants were creditors of Kassburg & Co., as also were Knoop & Co., and it was at the latter's suggestion that the 45 casks were sent to Nagasaki to the defendants.  The meat was sold at public auction, and the proceeds amounted to more than defendants' actual claim against the estate of Kassburg & Co.  Instead of crediting the overplus to the estate, defendants applied it to the payment of interest on an older debt due to them by Kassburg & Co.  They made a claim for that interest, and to that Mr. Iwerson also objected, making the second item.  Defendants' claim against the estate was $420.  The 45 casks  were handed to them as being the full value of their claim, but, as he had said, they realised more at auction, and instead of handing the surplus to Knoop & Co., they applied it in payment of interest on an old debt of $841, due to them by Kassburg & Co. in August last, but of which $350 had been paid.  Kasssburg & Co. became bankrupt at the end of October last, when there was a balance due to defendants, and against that again, there were shipments of tallow to the value of about $70, and that left defendants' claim against Kassburg & Co;. at $420.  On order to pay off that amount, the 45 casks were sent to them, and they agreed to take them over in payment of their claim, at $15 per cask.

   His HONOUR asked if Mr. Knoop knew all that of his own knowledge, or only from information he had received.

   Mr. Knoop replied that he could not say he knew it all of his own knowledge, but he did some of it.  His firm were creditors of Kassburg & Col to the amount of $15,000, and, on Kassburg & Co.'s bankruptcy becoming known, he himself went over to Nagasaki to see into matters.  It was his proposal that the 45 casks should be sent to the defendants.

   His HONOUR said he was afraid he could not take Mr. Knoop's statement as evidence.  He must have the evidence of some one who knew all about the transactions.

   Mr. Knoop went on to say that the defendants sold the casks by auction, and he contended they had no right to sell them, because they had agreed to take them at $15 per cask, in payment of their claim.  At the sale, however, they fetched more than was expected, and he considered the overplus should have been handed to Knoop & Co., who were the largest creditors,  and by whose consent the casks were sent to defendants, who would otherwise have had to take their chance with the other creditors.

   His HONOUR asked if Mt. Knoop could produce the account of the sale?

   Mr. KNOOP said he could not now, but it might be produced.

   His HONOUR said he must see the account sale, and he would also want evidence of the alleged sale at Nagasaki.

   Mr. KNOOP repeated that his firm were Kassburg & Co.'s largest creditors, all the others added together only amounting to $5,000.  He had applied to defendants for payment of the overplus, but they would not listen to it.

   His HONOUR said he would adjourn the case till two o'clock, for the attendance of Mr. Kassburg and the defendants (who could be summoned as witnesses, if necessary), and the production of the necessary accounts.

   On the gearing being resumed in the afternoon, the defendant apologised for his absence in the forenoon, and explained that the pork was purchased by his firm from Messrs. Kassburg and Company according to sample.  An order was first given for twenty-five casks and a subsequent order for fifteen casks, but in all forty-five casks were sent, Messrs. Kassburg & Company exceeding the latter order by five casks.  Of the forty-five casks, twenty were not according to sample, and for the benefit of Messrs. Kassburg and Company, they sent them to be sold by auction. They did the best they could, and the pork realised a fair price.

   His HONOUR said the matter in dispute seemed to be confined to two items - the deficiency in the price got for the pork at auction as compared with the price it was  alleged to have been sold at, and the excess in the claim for interest.

   Mr. WILSON said that was so.  He produced the account sale and other documents for the inspection of the Court.

   Mr. KNOOP said the pork having been supplied to Messrs. Lane, Crawford and Company in discharge of a debt, when they found it bad it was their duty to have protested against receiving it, or even to have returned it immediately.  Instead of doing this, they had auctioned the pork entirely on their own responsibility without referring to the parties at Nagasaki, which he thought they certainly ought to have done.

   His       HONOUR pointed out that Messrs. Lane, Crawford and Co. had a claim on the estate of Kassburg and Company for something like $400, and, according to Mr. Knoop, the 45 casks of pork were sent in liquidation of their claim, instead of being, as they ordinarily would be, sold for the benefit of all the creditors, of whom Messrs. Knoop were the largest.

   Mr. WILSON thought that was a matter they need not enter into, inasmuch as Mr. Knoop went to Nagasaki to close up Kassburg & Co., and took the whole estate into his own hands.  The pork was sent to them with his consent.

   Mr. KNOOP denied that he took the estate into his own hands;  it was put into the hands of Mr. Flowers, the Consul at Nagasaki, and Mr. Iwerson was appointed trustee.  He gave over his interest in the estate to let everybody else be satisfied in full.  His object was to avoid trouble, and this was the consequence of his kindness.

   Mr. WILSON said it was agreed that they should take payment of their debt in goods; and when the goods were not according to sample, to recoup themselves they thought they were justified in selling the pork by auction.  They had done the very best they could for all parties.

   Mr. KNOOP thought it would have been better if Messrs. Lane, Crawford & Co. had only recouped themselves to the value of their claim, and not sold all the pork.  Why should they sell beyond the claim?  They should have left it alone altogether.

   Mr. WILSON replied that they had accounted for every cent they had received.

   His HONOUR said he should like to know more about the arrangement that had existed between Kassburg & Co. and Messrs. Lane, Crawford & Co.

   Mr. WILSON - The goods were sent to us in payment of our account.  It was before the bankruptcy, and before we had any notification about Kassburg & Co. becoming bankrupts.

   His HONOUR - Then, what about the interest?

   Mr. WILSON - We charged no interest until the final account.  We don't always charge interest; it is a matter of policy for us to waive it at times with customers we want to keep.  We waived it in this instance until we rendered our final account, because of our business connection with Kassburg & Co.  We had not the least idea they were going into bankruptcy when they sent us the pork; and we have not claimed a cent more than we are legally entitled to.  Our usual term's are three months' credit on each invoice, and then we charge interest, that is if we think it will suit us to do so - interest is purely a matter of policy.  On these terms we deal with customers at all the out-ports, and the same applied to this case.  We had a distinct understanding with Kassburg & Co. to this effect; but if they had not been closing business, probably it would have been our policy not to charge them interest.  Any business firm would have acted in like manner.  Mr. Kassburg was now present and would give his version of the transaction, no doubt, if the Court desired it.

   His HONOUR said he was not aware that Mr. Kassburg was present; his evidence would be very important.

   Mr. KASSBURG then deposed that when he was in business he had an understanding with Messrs. Lane, Crawford & Co., that if he did not pay his bills within three months they were to charge interest.  They had never charged him interest, because, he supposed, they wanted to keep his custom.  Mr. Knoop had charged him interest at the rate of 8 per cent., Lane and Crawford's interest he believed was 1 per cent per month.

   Mr. KNOOP said he did not charge interest until his debt had been running over two years.

   His HONOUR asked Mr. Kassburg for some particulars about supplying the pork to lane, Crawford & Co.

   Mr. KASSBURG said he received a telegram from Mr. Harvie, of Lane, Crawford & Co.'s, to send 25 casks of pork at the earliest opportunity, at $15 per cask, to be delivered in Shanghai.  Subsequently he received another telegram ordering 15 casks on the same terms.  Mr. Knoop was then in Nagasaki, and with his consent he shipped 45 casks, 5 more than were ordered.

   Mr. WILSON - 25 casks were sound and 20 were bad, and we did the best we could with them under the circumstances.  They sold for $11 ½ per cask at the auction, and that was a far price.

   His HONOUR - If the goods were to be delivered at $15 per cask, all the charges would of course have to be deducted.

   Mr. KASSBURG repeated that the order was that the goods were to be delivered in Shanghai for $15 per cask.

   In reply to His Honour, Mr. Knoop said the goods were supplied perhaps a few days before he had filed the bankruptcy petition, and that it appeared the charges of transmission would have to be deducted.  He admitted that it was customary for interest to be paid on long outstanding accounts, but he thought the defendants were not entitled to interest in this instance, because they had not charged it originally.

   His HONOUR said that, as to the interest, an account was always open to explanation; and the defendants had explained why they did not charge interest in the first place - before the estate went into bankruptcy.  Interest was recoverable whenever there was a stipulation between the parties that it was to be paid, and there was no doubt that there was such a stipulation in this case; the defendants alleged there was, and Mr. Kassburg admitted it.  He mere fact that the defendants had not charged it in their account rendered on the 31st August, did not, when the circumstances were explained, and when there was no dispute between the original parties on the point, prevent them claiming it now; and if the sum they had worked out was correct - he had no means of ascertaining whether it was correct or not - there was no ground why they should not have it.

   Mr. KNOOP said if His Honour thought defendants were entitled to interest, he as quite willing to let them have it.

   His HONOUR replied that he thought they were entitled to it.  As to the pork, it seemed that the arrangement was that it should be delivered in Shanghai at $15 per cask; and the plaintiff's claim in respect of this matter was therefore reducible by the charges on the 25 casks at all events.  As to the other 20, they actually would seem to have fetched at auction as much as the plaintiffs contended they had been sold to the defendants for, viz., Tls. 11 ½ per cask.  No doubt the out-turn was somewhat less than $15, because auctioneer's commission was deducted in respect of these 20 casks in addition to the ordinary charges of freight, &c., but the difference after all was something very trifling, and it would appear that this was the manner of dealing with the goods that Kassburg himself (with whom alone the defendants were dealing) would have wished to be followed.  Accordingly, after deducting the charges which the defendants were entitled to, and the interest, the defendants had accounted for everything; and therefore judgment would be in their favour.

May 14th.

NIN-CHANG v. A. FERGUSON.

   Plaintiff, described as a market man, sued to recover $99.99, balance of account for goods sold and delivered, as per compradore order dated 10th February, 1876.

      Defendant did not dispute the debt, but said he had made an arrangement with plaintiff to pay him $10 interest for the current year in advance and for a friend of his, an engineer on board the Pluto (who had advanced to plaintiff the amount due on the compradore's order), to receive milk and butter as a set-off.  This man had since received $8.30 worth of those articles, but a few days ago declined to receive any more; and, for some reason, the plaintiff broke though his arrangement, and issued the summons.'   Plaintiff said the $10 paid to him by plaintiff, was for interest for 1876.

   Defendant said id His Honour considered it necessary, he could produce his clerk and compradore to prove that the arrangement was as he had stated.  One proof, he thought, was afforded by the fact that the monthly bills for milk and butter had not been presented to plaintiff's friend, the engineer, form payment, but were being allowed to accumulate against the debt.  Further, plaintiff had said that he was willing to give up the $10, which he would not be likely to do, if as he asserted, the interest was for 1876.

   His HONOUR said he considered defendant's statement was the more probable, and plaintiff must go on under the arrangement made, and wait until nest China New-year for payment of any balance that might at that time be due.  His friend, the engineer, however, or himself, might in the meantime take as much milk and butter as they chose up to the amount due, and the debt would in that way be paid off sooner.

May 15th.

KUH-ZAN-DAH v. J. B. MANSON.

   Plaintiff, a tepaou, claimed $60 from defendant, for work done and labour supplied.

   Defendant denied his liability.

   Plaintiff, through Heding, jun. interpreter, deposed - I am a tepaou.  I claim $60 from the defendant for removing coffins from a piece of land for him.  He employed me to do so.  I have removed the coffins.  Nothing was said about the price to be paid for doing the work.  The usual charge is $3 for each coffin.  There were 20 coffins removed, and that is why I charge $60.  I have applied to defendant for payment, but have not been paid.

   Defendant's statement was to the effect that the land in question was bought by Mr. Evans, the understanding being that the graves were to be removed free of expense to him. Si far as he (defendant) understood the bill of sale, which was in Chinese, it contained nothing about payment for removing the graves; but as he wished them to be removed at once, he told the plaintiff that if he would take them away quickly he would make him a small present.  He offered him $20, which he was at first willing to accept - in fact he told Mr. Spence so, but he had since refused to do so, and issued the summons.  He (defendant) was now quite willing to pay $15 or $20, but he certainly objected to pay $60, especially as some of the coffins were those of children.

   Four documents which he described as bills of sale of the different pieces of land, were produced by defendant and examined by plaintiff, but they turned out to be old Chinese title-deeds, and of course had no stipulation one way or the other about removing the graves.

   His HONOUR said the work had no doubt been done, and it was really a question of what was a reasonable sum to be paid for it.  Did the defendant know what was the usual charge?

   Defendant said he believed the Recreation Fund Trustees paid only $1.50 for removing each grave.  He was quite willing to pay that amount to close the matter up, but certainly not $60.

   His HONOUR asked if plaintiff had removed graves for foreigners previously?

   Plaintiff replied that he had. In the 8th moon last year he removed 70 graves from the race Course, for which Mr. Barnes Dallas paid him at the rate of $3 each, or $210 in all. 

   His HONOUR said if that was so, that would be evidence of what was a reasonable charge.  Was defendant willing to pay whatever sum Mr. Dallas had paid per grave?  If Mr. Dallas had paid $3 per grave, would defendant be content to pay the same?

   Defendant replied in the affirmative.

   His HONOUR said he would enquire of Mr. Dallas what sum was paid for removing the graves from the Race Course, and inform Mr. Manson afterwards. - His Honour, having communicated with Mr. Dallas later in the day, received the following reply from that gentleman:-

I had a large number of coffins removed last year, for which I paid $3 each.  There were several proprietors, so that I cannot tell you, without reference, what amount the tepaou you refer to received; but all were paid at the same rate.

   Judgment was accordingly entered for plaintiff, for $60 and costs.

May 16th.

FAU-CHONG v. JOHN BEATTIE.

   This was a judgment summons for the defendant to show cause why he had not paid the sum of Tls. 85 and $124.29, together with Court costs, in pursuance of an order of the Court made on the 11th inst.

   Defendant said he was unable to pay the plaintiff; he had no money, but he might be able to pay him if he would only give him time.

   His HONOUR pointed out that defendant had not paid off the other judgment plaintiff had against him.  That has been running since September, and defendant had only paid Tls. 20.  Now plaintiff had judgments against him for Tls. 140 and $150.11.

   Defendant was then sworn, and deposed that the lorcha Soochow did not solely belong to him; there was a mortgage on her to the extent of about $900.  When that mortgage was paid off the vessel was his.  He had now only a few dollars in hand.  The lorcha was now about three-quarters full of cargo, and he expected to sail for Hankow during this week - about Friday or Saturday.  He had not received the freight yet, nor could he state what it would amount to.  The bulk of the cargo was cotton, and there were about 200 bales on board.  Previously he believed he had been paid at the rate of about 34 cents a bale for cotton.

   Mr. DARKE, who represented the plaintiff, said if the lorcha went to Hankow it would be two months before she returned.  From Hankow she might go to Ningpo and Wenchow, and then she would be away six or eight months, which was a long time to wait for an outstanding debt.

   Defendant, in answer to His Honour, said he did not think there would be any balance from the freight he should receive after he had paid his sailors' and the vessels' expenses.

   Mr. MILLER, the owner of another lorcha, said he had a mortgage on the Soochow for $900, and a claim for interest amounting to between forty and fifty dollars.  If the Soochow was sold privately she might realise about $3,000, but she would not fetch so much if sold by auction.  He had not money to pay the plaintiffs' claim and add it on his mortgage.  The amount received for fraught for a lorcha like the Soochow for a passage to Hankow, would be about $150, and for the downward passage it generally amounted to about Tls. 300.  There was no profit on the up passage, but the other was nearly all profit - at least Tls. 150 or Tls. 200 of it was.

   His HONOUR said defendant had made two passages to Hankow, and ought certainly to have paid the plaintiff more than he had done.

   Defendant said he had paid other debts.  A Chinaman at Hankow had had an action against him.

   His HONOUR said defendant had behaved very badly to the plaintiff, who, on the other hand, had treated him with great consideration and leniency.  He expected it would come to the lorcha being sold, and that would be a great pity, as it would ruin the defendant.

   Mr. MILLER said that perhaps the money could be borrowed to pay off the plaintiff's claim.  He thought he could get some one to advance it.

   His HONOUR said it seemed as if defendant did not want to pay, and, of course, if he didn't nay the lorcha would have to be sold, Mr. Miller's mortgage paid off, the plaintiff paid, and the balance handed to him.  As however, it appeared that something might be done between this and Friday, in the way of raising money towards discharging the claim, he would adjourn the further hearing till then.

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