Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

McQueen v. Bradfield, 1885

[debt recovery]

McQueen v. Bradfield

Supreme Court for China and Japan

Knight CJ, 5 February 1885

Source: North China Herald, 11 February 1885

LAW REPORTS.
IN H.B.M.'s SUPREME COURT FOR CHINA AND JAPAN.
Shanghai, 5th Feb., 1885.
Before Sir Richard T. Rennie, Knight, Chief Justice.
And a jury consisting of Messrs. A. J. INVERARTY, C. J. HOLLIDAY, F. GOVE, BARNES DALLAS, and GEO. BUTLER.
ROBERT McQUEEN v. JOHN BRADFIELD.
  Mr. R. E. Wainewright appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. A. Myburgh for the defence.
  After several jurors had been objected to, a jury was impannelled as above.
  The pleadings were as follows:-
  The petition of Robert McQueen the above-named plaintiff shows as follows:-
- The plaintiff is a Master Mariner in the employ of the China Navigation Company Limited and is the Master of the said Company's steamship Pekin, and the defendant is a British subject resident in Shanghai and a Partner in the firm of "Llewellyn and Company" who carry on business at Shanghai as Chemists and Druggists.
- By an Indenture dated the 10th day of February 1879 between the defendant of the one part and the plaintiff of the other part,  the defendant in consideration of the sum of Ten Thousand Taels of Shanghai Sycee paid to him by the plaintiff conveyed to the plaintiff certain hereditaments by way of mortgage and covenanted with the plaintiff that he the defendant would pay to the plaintiff the sum of ten Thousand Taels Shanghai Sycee on the 10th day of February 1882 and also would so long as the  said sum of Ten thousand Taels or any part thereof should remain unpaid pay to the plaintiff in advance interest for the said sum of Ten thousand Taels for so much thereof as should for the time  being remain unpaid at the rate of Nine Taels per centum per annum by equal quarterly payments on the 10th day of February, the 10th day of May, the 10th day of August, and the 10th day of December.
- On the 28th day of April 1879 the plaintiff lent to the defendant the sum of One thousand Shanghai Taels Sycee and in consideration thereof the defendant gave to the plaintiff a memorandum making the said sum of One Thousand Taels a further charge upon the hereditaments comprised in the said Indenture of Mortgage of the 10th day of February 1879 on the terms and conditions set forth in the same Indenture as in and by the said Memorandum when produced to this Honourable Court will appear.
- On the 24th day of February 1880 the plaintiff lent to the defendant the further sum of Three thousand Taels Shanghai Sycee and the defendant agreed to pay interest upon such last mentioned sum at the rate of Eight Taels per centum per annum
- By an Indenture dated the 30th day of July 1881 made between the defendant of the one part and the plaintiff of the other part the defendant in consideration of the sum of Twelve Thousand taels of Shanghai Sycee paid to him by the plaintiff covenanted with the plaintiff that he the defendant would pay to the plaintiff on demand the sum of Twelve thousand Taels and that he the defendant would pay interest thereon in the meantime at the ate of Eight Taels per centum per annum by equal quarterly payments on the 30th day of January, the 30th day of April, the 30th day of July, and the 30th day of October.
- The whole of the said sums of Ten thousand Taels, One thousand Taels, Three thousand Taels and Twelve thousand Taels respectively with arrear of interest upon the said sums respectively remains due to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff therefore prays:
- That an account may be taken of what is due from the defendant to the plaintiff for principal money and interest and that the defendant may be decreed to pay to the plaintiff forthwith what shall be found due to him on taking such account together with his costs of this suit the plaintiff being ready and willing and hereby offering upon being paid his principal money and interest and costs to convey all the premises mortgaged to him by the defendant as the Court shall direct.
- That the plaintiff may have such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require.
In answer to the said petition the said defendant says as follows:-
- The defendant admits that the statements contained in the first five paragraphs of the petition are true.
- As to Tls. 19,146.78 parcel of the five principal sums claimed in the petition amounting to Tls. 26,000, the defendant satisfied the claim by payment before action to William Black Jamieson, the plaintiff's agent, as to Tls. 18,146.78 portion thereof on the 31st December 1883, and as to Tls. 1,000 further portion thereof on the 10th January 1884.
- On or about the 27th of January 1880 it was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant that part of the hereditament conveyed to the plaintiff by the defendant by the Indenture of the 10th of February 1879, in the petition mentioned should be freed and discharged from the mortgage debt secured thereby and by the Memorandum of the 28th of April, 1879, and that the remaining part of the said hereditaments should be charged in the sum of Tls. 4,000 portion of the Hongkong Fie Insurance Company, should be purchased by the defendant and should be deposited by him with William Black Jamieson, the plaintiff's agent to be held by the said agent as security for seven thousand Taels remaining portion of the said  debt in lieu of the said hereditaments and in pursuance of this agreement the entry of the mortgage in the books kept for the Registry of land at the British Consulate at Shanghai, and as regards the first mentioned part of the said hereditaments cancelled and twenty shares of the Hongkong Fire Insurance Company was purchased by the defendant and deposited with the said agent to be held by him as aforesaid.
- On or about the 24th of February 1880, the said shares were charged with the repayment of the sum of Three thousand Taels referred to in paragraph 4 of the petition.
- On or about the 30th of March 1881, it was agreed between the plaintiff and defendant that plaintiff's said agent should sell the said shares so deposited as aforesaid and should out of the proceeds thereof purchase fifty shares of the China Fire Insurance Company and that the shares of the China Fire Insurance Company so purchased should be held by the said agent as security in lieu of the said shares of the Hongkong Fire Insurance Company for the debt secured by such shares and in pursuance of this agreement fifty shares of the China Fire Insurance Company were purchased by the said agent and were held by him as security for the said debt until about the 8th of March 1883, when they were sold by him and the proceeds thereof amounting to Tls. 12,199 were thereafter held by him in lieu of such shares, as such security and on 31st December 1883 were appropriated by him to the payment of the capital sums claimed in the petition.
- During the month of March, 1883, the said agent received the proceeds of the shares belonging he defendant to apply the same, subject to the deduction of all charges against the same to the payment of the said principal sums claimed in the petition, and such proceeds were thereafter held by him subject as aforesaid to further secure the repayment of the said capital sums and on the 31st December, 1883, the said agent having then liquidated all such charges and having applied a portion of the said proceeds to the payment of the interest due on the said principal sums up to the said 31st of December 1883, and then holding the sum of Taels 5,947.78 a portion of the said proceeds freed from all charge and deductions as security for the said principal sums applied the same to the payment of the said principal sums.
- On or about the 15th of January 1884 a full just and true stated and settled account in writing was made and taken between the plaintiff and the said agent on the one side and the defendant on the other of all dealings and transactions between the plaintiff and defendant including the said principal sums and all payments made in respect thereof and the sum of Taels 7,853.22 and no more was then found to be due by the defendant to the plaintiff.
- On the 19th of January 1884 the defendant paid to the said agent of the plaintiff the sum of Tls. 1,000 in part satisfaction of the said sum of Tls. 7,853.22.
- As to Taels. 6,853.22 forming the remaining portion of the said principal sums and of the balance of the said account, the defendant on the 30th of June, 184, paid to the plaintiff he sum of Tls. 240 as interest hereon from the 1st day of January 1884.
- And as to the said sum of Tls. 6,853.22 and as to what interest there may be due to the plaintiff on taking the above mentioned payment into account the defendant admits that he is indebted to the plaintiff in such amount and interest and is ready and hereby submits to an account being taken of what is due to the plaintiff from the defendant in respect thereof.
The Crown Advocate said that as all the allegations were admitted with the exception of one - that the defendant owes any money to the plaintiff beyond a certain sum - the burden of proof rested with the defendant to prove that he had paid these sums.  He therefore claimed the tight to open the case.
  Mr. Wainewright said he could not deny the right of the defence to open the case.  He then read the pleadings.
  M. Myburgh then opened the case for the defence. He said that he second paragraph of the answer contained a plea that Tls. 19,146.78 had been paid.  Of this amount, Tls. 12,199 were the proceeds of the sale of certain shares which were hypothecated to the plaintiff.  The shares were held by Mr. W. B. Jamieson as agent for the plaintiff, and were sold after the time for payment of the loans had expired; and the proceeds of these shares, together with the proceeds of other shares belonging to the defendant which Jamieson held, and which the defendant instructed him to p towards the payments of those loans, were credited to the defendant.  These other shares were shares other than those hypothecated to the plaintiff, and the proceeds of these other shares amounted to the sum of Tls. 5,478; and this amount, after deducting some charges, was credited to the defendant by Jamieson as having been applied to the payment of the loans to the plaintiff.  When the accounts were settled between Jamieson, as plaintiff's agent, and the defendant, the defendant was credited with those amounts, and it was found that a sum of Tls. 7,000 odd was due from the defendant to the plaintiff.  Subsequently a sum of Tls. 1,000 was paid by the defendant, as the plaintiff admitted, and that reduced the amount due from the defendant to the plaintiff to the amount which was admitted in the answer as being due.
  Mr. Myburgh then stated in detail the circumstances under which the loans were made and repayments credited to the defendant by Mr. Jamieson, as subsequently stated by the defendant in the witness-box, and said that there would be ample evidence that Mr. Jamieson was fully authorized to act as the plaintiff's agent, that he always had acted as the plaintiff's agent, and that the plaintiff had never intimated that Jamieson was not to continue to act as such.
  John Bradfield, the defendant, was then called and examined by the Crown Advocate.  He said - My first loan from the plaintiff was in 1876.  I obtained it through W. B. Jamieson, broker and general agent in Shanghai, who was then acting for Captain McQueen.  The amount of that loan was Tls. 4,000.  The plaintiff was then in Shanghai.  I have never spoken a word to Capt. McQueen in my life about money matters.  Between 1876 and February 1879, I obtained several loans from Capt. McQueen through Jamieson, from whom I received the money.  I then gave the mortgage for Tls. 10,000 referred to in the petition, that including and superseding all the previous loans.  In February 1879, between making that mortgage, I received an advance of Tls. 2,000, I think, to make up the full amount of the mortgage - Tls. 10,000.  That I also received through Jamieson.
  The Crown Advocate put in the mortgage and explained that it referred to the property on which the houses known as "The Poplars" and "The Elms" are situated.
  Witness - Captain McQueen went home in April 1879, I think.  Before that the interest was paid to W. B. Jamieson.  I produce receipts signed by W. B. Jamieson.  After Captain McQueen went home, the interest was still paid to Jamieson, and I have never paid any interest to plaintiff himself except through Jamieson.  The interest has been paid to November, 1883 - I think about that time.  I can give the exact date from the accounts.  The Tls. 1,000 mentioned in par. 3 of the petition I got from W.B. Jamieson.  This paper (shown) is a memorandum of the further charge on the property previously mortgaged to the plaintiff of the Tls. 1,000 mentioned in that paragraph.  In January 1880, "The Elms" - one of the two properties mentioned in the mortgage - was sold.  The money that I got for "The Elms" I wanted to use to pay off the mortgage; but Jamieson said no, he could not do that.  I then bought twenty shares in the Hongkong Fire Insurance Company, and gave them to Jamieson to hold as security on the part of McQueen in the place of "The Elms."  Jamieson gave his consent for the purchase of the shares, and took them as security.
  The Crown Advocate put in copies of endorsements in the Register in the British Consulate of Lots No, 648, 938 and 972, the mortgaged property.
  Witness - The Land marked as released from the mortgage is "The Elms," and the land marked as mortgaged for Tls. 4,000 is "The Poplars."  I signed the memorandum now shown me, dated 9th February, 1880.  The memorandum was to hand over to W.B. Jamieson, and to hypothecate to the plaintiff, twenty shares in the Hongkong Fire insurance Company as security for Tls. 7,000. That as to cover the old loan. I then owed the plaintiff Tls. 11,000 and this Tls. 7,000 and the Tls. 4,000 secured on "The Poplars" made up the Tls. 11,000.  I handed these twenty shares to Jamieson.  On Feb. 24, 1880, I borrowed Tls. 3,000 more, as mentioned in par. 4 of the petition.  Mr. Jameson wrote a memorandum of that at the foot of the memorandum just shown to me, this being a loan on the same security.  I signed that memorandum on the 24th Feb., but the money was not paid till the following March.  I got a promissory note from Jamieson on the 24th Feb., and I was paid in March.  On the 29th February I left Shanghai for England, and returned in November; nothing of importance happened during at time.  In March 188[?], I made an agreement with Jamison to sell the Hongkong Fire shares, and with part of the proceeds to buy fifty China Fire shares, which should be held as security in place of the Hongkong Fire shares.  That arrangement as carried out.  The fifty China Fire shares were worth about Tls. 12,000.  Jamieson effected the exchange of shares.  Hongkong Fire were very high; that is why I sold them.  
  In July, 1881, I agreed to borrow Tls. 12,000 more from h plaintiff, as mentioned in par. 5 of the petition; and gave the document mentioned herein - a bill of sale on a half-share in the Medical Hall - as security.  I made the agreement for that Tls. 12,000 with Jamieson, and he gave me a promissory note for the full amount, which I endorsed, and discounted with the Agra Bank.
  The Court then adjourned for tiffin.  On returning in h afternoon,
  The Witness, further examined, said - I went home in December, 1881, and left Mr. Jamieson as my agent here, giving him full power of attorney.  I left instructions with him to release the bill of sale as soon as he could - to pay off all the loans as soon as he possibly could. Mr. Jamieson then held several shares of mine besides those that had been hypothecated to Captain McQueen.  I wrote the letter produced, dated London, July 7th 1882.  I say there, "I hope soon you will get rid of hat horrid B.S. Do so as quickly as possible."  I meant by that the bill of sale to Capt. McQueen for Tls. 12,000.  I received the letter produced, dated 14th March, 1883, from Jamieson. (The latter stated that the writer had sold all the defendant's Hongkong Fire shares at a price which would show a profit.) I also received the letter from Jamieson produced, dated June 22, 1883.   I left home for Shanghai on Oct. 12, 1883. , and I received the letter produced from Jamieson, dated 29th September, 1883, on my way out.  With that letter I received an enclosure - accounts dated September 30th, 1883.  To make up the Tls. 31,000 odd there placed to my debit, and addition of Tls. 12,000 is required.  This I consider to be an omission of the Tls. 12,000 lent by McQueen on a bill of sale for the purchase of Henderson's shares in the Medical Hall.  I inferred from that account that I then owed McQueen Tls. 10,000 odd; but when I arrived in Shanghai I found it was not correct; I found that the proper amount was about Tls. 6,000.  I arrived in Shanghai on 23rd November, and Jamieson met me at the boat and asked me to go to tiffin with him.  I went, and met Captain McQueen there; but no conversation about business took place then.  
  When I left Shanghai, Captain McQueen was in England; but when I returned he had been there some time - I think he arrived in March.  Captain McQueen did not say a word to the effect that Jamieson was not authorised to act as his agent.  I told Jamieson that same afternoon to get my account ready as soon as possible.  I had not then got the detailed items of my account of the 30th September.  I several times told Jamieson to get the bill of sale out of Court.  I received the letter produced, from Jamieson, dated the 25th December, enclosing accounts, and produced, which showed that I owed Capt. McQueen Tls. 6,599.93.  After receiving that letter with the accounts I had some further conversation with Jamieson about taking the bill of sale out of Court, and Jamieson said he could not do it, because it must be done by an attorney - a solicitor.  I then told him to go to Mr. Wainewrght, and he afterwards told me that Mr. Wainewright had been and that he could not do it until Captain McQueen came down from Hankow.  That was in January.  I saw Mr. Wainewright about it myself the day before I left Shanghai - I returned to England again in January, 1884.  I met Mr. Wainewright on the Bund, and he told me that it could not be done until Captain McQueen came down from Hankow.  My last words to Mr. Wainewright were to get the bill of sale out as soon as Captain McQueen returned from Hankow.
  The bill of wale was produced having drafted upon it a memorandum of satisfaction, made on the 17th January, but never executed, spaces for dates and signatures being left blank.
  The Witness - The day after that conversation with Mr. Wainewrigt I left for England - on the 19th January - and returned in November of that year.  I received a statement of accounts from Mr. Jamieson in January, before I left Shanghai.  I inferred from that account that there was then due to McQueen Tls. 7,853.20.  I had made arrangements for paying off that amount.  Jamieson asked me to give him a cheque for Tls. 1,000 and I did so.  (The cheque, for Tls. 1,000, payable to Captain McQueen, or order on the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, was produced.)  With regard to the other Tls. 6,000 odd, I had sold "The Poplars" for Tls. 6.000, to be paid in June; and the money was then to be paid to Captain McQueen.  But the contract for the sale fell through - the party who bought it could not take it up in June.  If that had been paid it would have left a balance of Tls. 300 or Tls. 400 due to Captain McQueen - or a little more perhaps.  When I left I thought that that arrangement would be carried out.  I thought Jamieson was fully authorised to make those arrangements in plaintiff's behalf.
  The first I heard of any difficulty in the matter was in the following May - from Messrs. Harwood and Stephenson; also through a letter from W. B. Jamieson, dated 31st March.  Before that I received no intimation hat the plaintiff had not acquiesced in all that had been done.  I afterwards received the two notices produced, from the plaintiff, requiring me to pay up the principal and interest on the two loans.
  Cross-examined by Mr. Wainewright, the witness said - The amount of the first loan, in 1876, was, I think, Tls. 4,000.  Prior to the deed of mortgage of February 1879, I had not paid off any of that loan.  My next loan, I think, was the sum of Tls. 2,000.  That also was still running when I executed the deed of mortgage in February 1879, for Tls. 10,000. I had not then paid back any of the money which I had from time to time borrowed from Capt. McQueen.  A mortgage on "The Poplars," and the title deeds of the two pieces of land adjoining had been given as securities for the loans before the mortgage of 1879 was executed.  All the money has been secured.  The loans were made through Jamieson, and were paid by cheque, but whether they were Capt. McQueen's cheques or Mr. Jamieson's cheques I cannot say.  Before January, 1879, Jamieson was my agent in borrowing money for me; and he also bought and sold shares for me.  He never, before that, held any power of attorney from me, and he did not act as my agent for any other purposes than those of borrowing money and buying and selling shares. I had not the twenty Hongkong Fire shares in my possession before I sold "The Elms." They were bought specially to be substituted for the mortgage on the "Elms" - as security - I think Mr. Jamieson bought the shares, and I never had the scrip in my possession.  I cannot say in whose name they were - I signed the blank transfer.  I never saw the scrip that I am aware of.  I was present at the Consulate when the notes of the discharge of the two lots were put on the Consulate register - when the mortgages were discharged.  I think we had no lawyer.  I saw the plaintiff's power of attorney to Mr. Jamieson - I must have seen it, because it was produced there.  I never saw it at any other time, until came back to Shanghai this time - I never asked to see it.  Jamieson sold the Hongkong Fires.
  His Lordship - For you?
  Witness - I consider they were Capt. McQueen's shares.  I sold them with Capt. McQueen's sanction - given through Mr. Jamieson.  I cannot say whether Capt. McQueen's name was ever mentioned. Mr. Jamieson bought the fifty China Fire shares.  The Hongkong Fire shares were sold, part for China Fire and pat for cash.  The party I sold the shares to was Mr. Benjamin. I received the money - about Tls. 10,000 - but not the shares - Jamieson received the shares.  Jamieson sold ten of my Hongkong Fire shares with them, so that the fifty China Fire shares and the Tls. 10,000 were the proceeds of thirty Hongkong Fire shares.  I had the ten Hongkong Fire shares in my own possession - not in Jamieson's.  I was not at that time the holder of any China Fire shares.  I go some shortly afterwards; but I had none at that time.  Mr. Jamieson bought some of them for me.  Jamieson held them after they were bought.  The scrip for the fifty China Fire shares was never in my possession.  The reason I took a promissory note from Mr. Jamieson for the Tls. 12,000 in July, 1881, was because he had not then got sufficient money of McQueen's  in hand, and could not have until the following March.
  The first power of attorney I gave to Jamieson was in February, 1880.  In 1882, under your (Mr. Wainewright) advice, I gave him another, special power of attorney. I withdrew that power when I returned this time - in November, 1884.
  When I went home and gave instructions to Jamieson to pay off all my loans as soon as he could, he held several shares of mine - Hongkong Fires, China Fire and Hongkong Banks - which he was to sell.  These cheques shown to me are for payment of interest due from me to plaintiff.  Some of them are signed by Mr. Jamison as attorney for me and endorsed by him as agent for Capt. McQueen.  Up to the end of 1883 Mr. Jamieson had never given me any receipt for any principal repaid to Capt. McQueen - unless you take it as a receipt were he credits me with the amount.
  Mr. Wainewright - Do you believe that Captain McQueen has actually received himself - not that his attorney has received - any of the amounts except the Tls. 1,000?
  Witness - I believed so when I left for England.
  Mr. Wainwright - Have you any reason to believe so now?
  Witness - I only know from what I have heard.  Am I bound to answer that question, my Lord?  I know nothing except from hearsay.
  His Lordship intimated that the witness must answer the question.
  Witness - I know now, from what I have heard outside, that he has not been paid.
  Mr. Wainewright -Did you at any time suspect, or begin to suspect, that there was something wrong about the matter, as regards Captain McQueen?
  Witness - Yes.
  Mr. Wainwright - When?
  Witness - When I got these papers from you (the papers demanding repayment of the loan); and also from a letter which I received from W. B. Jamieson about the same time that I got those notes.
  The Witness, further cross-examined, said - In November and December, 1883, and January, 1884, Jamieson sold shares for me.  There were only sales then - no purchases.  He sold 288 Hongkong Banks - no others.  The reason I say in my answer that the account between myself and the plaintiff was closed on the 31st December, 1883, was that Jamieson rendered me an account on that date. The account I mean is dated January 4th, 1884.  I never asked for receipts for the principal repaid to Captain McQueen, I considered the credits given to me by Mr. Jamieson as receipt.  I have never given Jamieson any cheque for the repayment of principal except the Tls. 1,000.  Proceedings were taking against ne in London on behalf of Captain McQueen, and my solicitor was served with a writ.   A defence was put in for me, similar to this produced.  I have not got the contract for the sale of the "Poplars."  When I made my defence in London I believed that the "Poplars" had been sold and the Tls. 6,000 paid to the plaintiff, and I stated so in my defence.  The purchaser was Mr. Benjamin.  That defence is dated 10th July, 184; but it was drawn up about May.  I had no reason to believe that Benjamin was not in a position to fulfil the contract for the purchase of the house.  I find that it was on the 24th January, 1884, that I left Shanghai for England, and not on the 19th as I previously stated.
  Re-examined by the Crown Advocate, the witness said - I did not read the power of attorney given by the plaintiff to Mr. Jameson when I saw it at the Consulate.  If Capt. McQueen had wished to see me with reference to business matters after I returned to Shanghai last November he could always have seen me during the next two months.  I never spoke one word to Capt. McQueen on money matters in my life.  I do not think that Capt. McQueen is lying altogether out of the Tls. 25,000.  I think he has security for it.  I still owe him Tls. 6,000 odd.
  The Court then adjourned till next morning (Friday, 6th inst.) at 10 o'clock.
6th Feb.
  William Black Jamieson, examined by the Crown Advocate, said - I am a British subject, and a share-broker and Commission-agent of Shanghai.  I have been doing business for the plaintiff since about 1875.  I arranged loans from the plaintiff to the defendant.  The first was in 1876, for Tls. 4,000. A mortgage was given by the plaintiff to the defendant in1879. That mortgage was for several sums previously lent.  I arranged those previous loans and I collected the interest from defendant for plaintiff from the time the loans were first made, and continued to collect it up to the end of 1883m and I also made a payment in June, 184.  I did not act for McQueen after the end of 1883.  The payment I made in June was interest on a balance of Tls. 6,000 odd which I understood to be due then on the security of the "Poplars."  I signed the receipts for the interest on behalf of Captain McQueen, from the beginning up to the end of 1883.  Captain McQueen left for England about the end of April, 1870, I think, and he then gave me a power of attorney (produced). I think I have never read that power of attorney.  During Captain McQueen's absence I received from him the letter produced
  The Crown Advocate read a number of extracts from these letters.
  Witness - On 28th April, 1879, Bradfield borrowed from McQueen Tls. 1,000.  I gave him that.  McQueen had just left Shanghai then.  I reported that to McQueen on the 19th June.  On the 4th February, 1880, I wrote a letter to Captain McQueen. (Letter read.) That letter contains a correct statement of the arrangement I made with Bradfield as to the substitution of Hongkong Fire shares for the mortgage on the "Elms."  When the "Elms" was sold I knew that the mortgage was for a certain length of time at a certain interest, and I would not let him off paying the interest on the sum advanced.  I had the Hongkong Fire shares in my possession from Feb. 1880, till March, 1881.  I held them for McQueen to secure his loan to the defendant.  I drafted the memorandum of the deposit of the shares, dated the 9th February, 1880.  I got an answer from McQueen to my letter of the 4th February. (Latter produced, dated 25th March, 1880.) In March, 1881, the Hongkong Fire shares were sold, and I got fifty China Fire shares in exchange.  I held those fifty shares for McQueen, to secure his loans to the defendant.  I held those, I think, till 1883.  I considered I had authority to make that change.  In July, 1881, Bradfield borrowed from McQueen Tls. 12,000 more.  I lent that money.  In the first instance I advanced my own money, obtaining it by discounting a promissory note on the Agra Bank.  The bill of sale given as security for that Tls. 12,000 was made out in favour of McQueen.  I paid off the promissory note to the Agra Bank by my own cheque on the Hongkong Bank.  I passed the Tls. 12,000 to McQueen's debit in February, 1882.  In December, 181, Bradfield went home and appointed me as his attorney. I received this letter, dated July 7th, 1882, from Bradfield, saying "I hope soon you will get rid of that horrid B.S. Do so as soon as you can." By "B.S." I understood "bill of sale."  I also received this latter dated 23rd January, 1883.  By "Henderson's share" in that letter I understood the bill of sale.  That is the only thing it can apply to - the bill of sale on which money was advanced to him to purchase Henderson's share.   I received that letter about March 1883; and I wrote this letter, dated March 14th, 1883, to Bradfield. The China Fires I refer to there as having sold were China Fires I held for Bradfield.  I held, I think, a hundred China Fires for Bradfield - fifty I got in exchange for the Hongkong Fires, which I held against McQueen's loan, and fifty besides. All these were sold about that time, and realized altogether Tls. 24,394.  I could not say whether the time for the repayment of the loan to McQueen on the mortgage had expired.
  Mr. Wainewright - It expired in February, 1882.
  Witness (looking at the mortgage) - Yes; it had expired.  There was no time mentioned for the expiry of the loan in the bill of sale.  I wrote this letter to Bradfield, dated Sept. 23rd, 1883, saying that I ought to have sent him a statement of his affairs long ago.  I sent him this memorandum of accounts, dated 30th Sept. It shows Tls. 31,000 on the debit side, and a balance against Bradfield of Tls. 10,576 on general account.  That includes the loans that have been mentioned.  That was not an account really; it was merely a rough memorandum. It was not quite correct; it was corrected subsequently by another account.  Bradfield came back to Shanghai about November, 1883.
  The Crown Advocate - Did you send him that account?
  Mr. Wainewright - It is not an account.  The witness keeps saying it is not.  It is only a rough memorandum. It contains a mistake of Tls. 12,000 to begin with.
  The Crown Advocate - A clerical error of Tls. 12,000, and a mistake of Tls. 5,000.
  Witness - I omitted including the item of Tls. 12,000, the loan on the bill of sale, and there is a mistake about the dividends besides.  Subsequently I sent Bradfield a corrected account showing a balance of Tls. 6,000 against him, and some unsettled accounts.  Before I rendered that account I received the note from Bradfield, dated Dec. 24th, 1883, produced, about taking the bill of sale out of Court; and I wrote the letter produced stating that I had been too busy to go to the Consulate the day before.  I then considered that Bradfield was entitled to have the bill of sale taken out of Court.  He had previously spoken to me about taking the bill of sale out o Court.
  I rendered to Bradfield the account produced, dated January, 1884.  There is no date of the month on it.  It was despatched about the 4th or 5th of January.  It shows a general balance of affairs at that date between Bradfield and McQueen and myself. It shows a balance against Bradfield of Tls. 7,853.30.  That account is an account of the loans made by McQueen to Bradfield.  It includes them all, and shows the interest on them all to have been paid up to 31st December, 1883.  When that account was made out, Bradfield did not owe McQueen anything more than the balance therein stated of Tls. 7,853.  That balance was due to me on McQueen's account, because I was ac ting as agent for McQueen.  There was no special arrangement between Bradfield and me for the payment of that balance.  He paid me Tls. 1,000 on account, and he had sold the "Poplars" for Tls. 6,000, which sale, if it had been carried through, would have almost squared his account.  I should have put the matter through and received the money and put it to his credit to clear up the account.  The arrangement for the "Poplars" fell through.  This (produced) is the cheque for Tls. 1,000 I got from Bradfield.  I endorsed it "Robert McQueen, by his attorney, W. B. Jamieson."  I considered myself empowered to do that, and the bank made no objection.  When the money came in for the China Fire shares I paid it into my own account in the bank.  At that time I do not think I had sufficient money to pay off what Bradfield owned to McQueen.  I did not make up the accounts at that time.  If I had made them up at that time and found what Bradfield owed to McQueen, and found what I had received on behalf of Bradfield. I could have paid off McQueen for the China Fires.
  The Court then adjourned for tiffin.
  On the hearing being resumed in the afternoon,
  William Black Jamieson, further examined by the Crown Advocate, said - If McQueen had at that time, when the China Fire shares were sold, called upon me to pay over to him, the money I had received for him from Bradfield in p of those loans, I should have been able to pay it over.  I could have paid it over at the time I made up the account on the 30th September.  In January, 1884, I was shut down upon by the Hongkong Bank.  My drawing upon he Bank was not stopped till January, 1884, and I could have paid it over up to that time.  When I got the proceeds of the China Fire shares I placed it to my account at the Hongkong Bank.  I did not apply it to any purpose, except that I had an overdrawn account at the bank, and placing this money to my account reduced the overdraft.  I could have drawn that money out again.  The Bank would have debited me.  They held security, in the shape of shares, against my overdraft.  The shares were more than sufficient to cover the whole of the overdraft.  All that I put in was at that rime available for me to draw out and pay over to McQueen.
  The Crown Advocate - To put it shortly, did
you employ that money in a way authorized
by McQueen or not?
  Witness - Yes, I consider that I did.
  His Lordship - By putting it to your account?
  Witness - Yes. I wrote this latter to McQueen, dated 6th Feb., 1882.
    The Crown Advocate read two extracts from the letters, as follows:-
   "In the mem, of loans you will see Bradfield has a pretty considerable amount but I consider I quite safe, as in the absence of anything better offering I was glad to get it.  The sum advanced on a bill of sale was to buy Dr. Henderson's interest in Llewellyn and Co. Bradfield now has three-quarters of the concern, and Dr. Sibald one quarter."
     "The amount outstanding against my name is against shares on general account -shares held by the Bank.  I cannot well make it a special loan, as the securities are constantly changing; and it is convenient for me to employ your balance in hand in this way."
  Witness - I used the money that I received for the China shares in the way referred to in the latter paragraph quoted from that letter.  Looking at my account rendered on the 6th March, 1880, I find there Tls. 6,000 lent out by me in that way.  This letter produced, dated Oct. 26, 1880, is a letter I wrote to McQueen, with accounts attached.  It shows that I then had Tls. 4,800 of McQueen's lent out in the same way.  I sent the memorandum dated 28th March, 1881, to McQueen.  There is there a similar item of "loan on shares to employ balance, Tls. 2,000."  That money was employed in the same way.  
  In the account dated January, 1882, there were two sums, amounting to Tls. 18,500, which were employed in that way.  The account produced dated 2nd Feb. 1882m shows that on the 31st December, 1881, I had Tls. 18,200 of McQueen's.  That was employed on General Account in the same way, and Tls. 12,000 went for the loan on the bill of sale.  McQueen came back to Shanghai in about March, 1883.  I do not think I had any conversation with him then on business matters.  He did not say anything to me about my ceasing to act for him.  He wrote for his power of attorney, I think, and papers, early in February, or at the end of January, 184.  As a fact, I continued to act for him up to about the middle of January, 1884, in other matters besides this of Bradfield's.  I do not think I informed him that Bradfield's loans had been paid off until the end of January, 1884, when I showed him a memorandum of how Bradfield and I stood with regard to his loans.  I afterwards rendered an account to McQueen.
  Mr. Wainewright said he could not produce the memorandum shown by the witness to Capt. McQueen at the end of January, 184.  He denied that any such memorandum had been shown to Capt. McQueen.
  Witness - I told McQueen that I did not stand well, and that here were monies which might not come in, and if they did not come in he would lose on his account.  I told him there was a party who owed me money, and if he paid up it would be all right, and he (McQueen) would not lose anything.  The party I meant was Mr. Benjamin.  I told McQueen I could not do anything - I could not give him any money or any securities.  The only thing I could so was to give him a promissory note endorsed by Benjamin,  I gave him three, for Tls. 5,000 each, and he accepted them, one was due on Nov. 30th, 1884, on Jan. 31st, 1885, and one is  due next March.  Two have been presented, and the third is not yet due.  I rendered this account to McQueen, dated the 5th Feb. 1881.  The property at Nagasaki is mine.  I foreclosed on a mortgage and I bought in the property, and paid McQueen Tls. 3,500 and took over the property.  I am the legal owner of the property, and I consider it as hypothecated to McQueen, as part security for what I owe him.  According to that account, I owe McQueen Tls. 16,460.  For that he holds three promissory notes.  If I had not charged myself with the money received from Bradfield on account of McQueen's loans I would not be indebted to McQueen at all, and in fact he would have no right to hold those promissory notes at all.  I collected the rents on the Nagasaki property to the end of June last year, and paid it over to the defendant.
  Cross-examined by Mr. Wainewright, the witness said - I have known the defendant since about 1872, but I do not think I did any business for him before I got that loan for him in 1876.  Bradfield and another man, Mr. Brewer, came to me about the loan, and I knew that Cat. McQueen had money, and I laid this before him. He did not come to me about it.  When these loans to Bradfield were made, the money was paid by Capt. McQueen's cheques, I think.  Before Capt. McQueen went home in 1879 I bought and sold shares for him; but I do not think I did any other business for him, except loans - one to Mr. Byrne, of Hall and Holtz.  There were no others.  Mr. Byrne asked me to get the money, and I went to Capt. McQueen.  I collected the interest on the loans for Captain McQueen from Mr. Bradfield and Mr. Byrne.  I made out debit notes and sent them in.  I do not think Captain McQueen ever made out any debit notes himself.  He was frequently absent from Shanghai; he was then working on the Yangtsze.  Before he went home I do not think I received any re-payment of principal for him, I lent money for him on shares, and I may have received repayment of this prior to 1879.  I think I had money of McQueen's in hand to lend out on shares for him.  On Nov. 8th, 1878, I find I got Tls. 10,000 from the plaintiff to advance on shares.  I lent it out three days afterwards in two loans - one to Lane, Crawford & Co., and one to Benjamin. I have no doubt that the amount was entrusted to me for that special purpose.  When I received interest for McQueen I put it in to his account.  I do not think that I have ever read the power of attorney given me by McQueen.  I know that a power of attorney is as a rule only to be used when the man is absent, and I did not think it was intended that I should use it when he was here.  There is no doubt that McQueen gave me instructions before he went away in 1879; but I cannot remember them.  I remember promising Captain McQueen that I would keep his accounts separately and would not mix up my funds with his own.  He had an account with the Hongkong bank in his own name; it was intended to be kept up in his name and always was kept up.  I drew cheques on it as his attorney.  I was present at the Consular Land Office when a portion of the loan on Mr. Bradfield's property was paid off in January, 1880, and the mortgage was cancelled as to two of the lots.  One lot - 972 - The "Poplars" was left subject to h mortgage.  When the Hongkong Fire shares were substituted for two lots of land, I could not say in whose name the shares were, but very likely in my name.  The scrip was kept in McQueen's box in the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank.  I think they were kept there until they were sold in 881.  The fifty China Fires cost Tls. 11,198, and the twenty Hongkong Fires which hey replaced realised about the same.  I will be able to show it by looking up my books.  This (produced) is an account which I rendered to Mr. Bradfield later. When I bought the fifty China Fires to replace the twenty Hongkong Fires as security for the loan, I did not buy any other China Fires - not at that date.  From this account it is evidence that I bought the fifty China Fires with the proceeds of the fifteen Hongkong Fires.  Mr. Bradfield proposed the change from Hongkong Fires to China Fires - I suppose because he thought it was a good time to sell the Hongkong Fires.  I charged commission on the sale - we always charge on the sale.  That commission was paid by Bradfield.  I cannot remember from whom I got the fifty China Fires.  They were most probably put in my name, but I cannot be sure.  All Bradfield's shares, I think, went into my name when I had control of them.  Before I bought the China shares I do not think I held any shares for Bradfield, but subsequently I did, in my name. I held the scrip of the fifty China Fires.  They were kept in the Hongkong Bank, in the bank box.  I do not think after I sold the Hongkong Fires I kept the shares apart.  I do not remember any of them going into Captain McQueen's box after that.  They were put amongst my securities.  They were then or afterwards amongst the securities against my overdraft at the Bank.  There was nothing to show that Captain McQueen had any interest in them.
  The sale of the twenty Hongkong shares no doubt produced a surplus over the China Fire shares purchased, and I accounted to Mr. Bradfield for it.  I do not think I ever advised Captain McQueen of the change of security from Hongkong Fires to China Fires. I did not think it necessary.
  In March, 1883, those fifty China Fires were sold, and I think fifty others.  The thing was left to my discretion, and I thought it was a god time to sell them.  He always wanted them sold, but of course had to wait on the market.  On the 14th March, I wrote to Mr. Bradfield "I sold the last of the China Fires yesterday."  I referred to a lot which included the plaintiff's fifty.  Before I sold those I had no directions from Mr. Bradfield as to what I should do with the proceeds. I got a brokerage on the sale of those, which Bradfield paid.  The proceeds went into my account at the Hongkong Bank.  There was no evidence preserved to show that Captain McQueen had any interest in the proceeds of the sale.  If Mr. Bradfield, Instead of substituting shares for the mortgage, had kept the mortgage as the security, and if he had paid off the mortgage in cash, I should have paid it into Captain McQueen's separate account, as I did with the interest. I never specifically mentioned the sale of the China Fires to McQueen.  He never knew that I held them.  Capt. McQueen arrived Shanghai just about the time when the China Fires were sold.  I saw him frequently, but I never told him about the sale.  I do not remember his asking me any questions about the securities; but he may have asked me if they were all in order.
  During March, 1883, I think I received also the proceeds of some other shares of Bradfield's which I sold.  I think there were seventy Hongkong Fires as well as the China Fires.  From the 19th February to the 28th March I received Tls. 60,000 from the sale of the Hongkong Fire shares belonging to the defendant; in March I received Tls. 26,000.  I sold hem for Bradfield under general instructions, and paid the proceeds into my account at the bank.  I received no instructions from Mr. Bradfield as to how I was to dispose of those proceeds.  I did not in any way appropriate or devote those proceeds to the payment of Capt. McQueen.  The defendant did not at any time tell me that the proceeds were to be devoted to the liquidation of Capt. McQueen's claims.  In cases where I used the plaintiff's money - balance in my hands - on the security of shares sold by me, I never hypothecated any particular shares to McQueen.  I substituted Capt. McQueen's money for money overdrawn on my banking account, and paid him interest instead of paying interest to the bank.  I made entries of those transactions in a memorandum book. - The witness read several entries in the following form "Borrowed from Robert McQueen's account on shares to employ his funds, Tls. ----, interest at 8 per cent payable by W. B. Jamieson." - He said - That memorandum book was never shown to McQueen.  I explained to Capt. McQueen that "cashed loaned out on shares" in the accounts I rendered to him, meant money placed by me to my private account.  I think my letters show that. I think my letter of the 6th Feb., 1882, shows it.  I do not think I ever verbally [to] told him anything about it.  When Capt. McQueen came out in March, 1883, I do not remember his asking me for an account at any time.  The first account I rendered him after that was possibly in October.  After the plaintiff came out I do not think I drew any more cheques on the bank on his account.  I received interest for him as I had done before he went away, and paid money in to his account. I gave Mr. Everall the money without mentioning it to Capt. McQueen at all.  It was Capt. McQueen's money that I had in my hands.  I may have mentioned it to Capt. McQueen, but I do not remember it.  At all events I settled the matter without consulting him.
  I do not remember doing any other acts as agent for Capt. McQueen after he returned to Shanghai.  It was after the 31st December 1883, that I first notified Capt. McQueen that the loans to Bradfield had been paid over, so far as Bradfield was concerned. I never had a credit at the Hongkong Bank during the year 1883 without my securities; but I always had securities more than sufficient to cover the overdraft - I always had an overdraft, but I was never allowed to overdraw above the margin accrued.
  On the 5th October I had a margin of Tls. 16,000 to draw upon, but that decreased, because the securities decreased.  On August 28, I had Tls. 20,000.  On the 24th Janay I had Tls. 3,000; but all through 1883 I had money ling in the Chartered Bank, - that is, I had securities lodged the [extra] margin which I could have raised by realising my securities. I also had money in David Marr Henderson's hands, but I did not keep any account for drawing except at the Hongkong Bank.  I first notified the plaintiff of the repayment of the defendant's loans personally in my office in January, 1884.  I showed him the amount of money that Bradfield owed me.  I had not time to render and account to McQueen until I had finished Bradfield's accounts.  I did not furnish McQueen with a copy of the accounts I furnished to Bradfield because I did not think it necessary.  I had a bill protested at the Hongkong Bank on the 21st February, and then my account as stopped.  Mr. Benjamin then owed me over Tls. 20,000 on share transactions.  The plaintiff never asked me to let him know if Mr. Bradfield was going away; and he never told me that I must not let Mr. Bradfield go without settling up one or other of the loans - at last I have not the slightest recollection of it.  When I first told McQueen there as something wrong I did not think that McQueen would lose anything, because I did not think Benjamin was going to the bad then.  If Benjamin had pulled through, McQueen would have lost nothing and I would have lost nothing.  Mr. Bradfield never asked me, as Capt. McQueen's agent, for any acknowledgement of the sums paid by him on Capt. McQueen's loans.
 The Court then adjourned till Monday, the 9h inst., at q0 a.m.
9th Feb.
  William Black Jamieson further cross-examined by Mr. Wainewright, said - This (produced) is the account I rendered to the defendant on the 6th January, 1884.  It is signed "W. B. Jamieson." I signed it as being the full account between Bradfield and McQueen and myself.  I signed it for myself, and as agent for McQueen.  The account is made out to Bradfield.  These (produced) are some of the letters I received from McQueen while he was absent from Shanghai.  I also received these two letters produced) written by Capt. McQueen while he was in China.  This (produced) is an account I rendered to the defendant.  Under the date of the 10th March, 1881, there are fifty China Fire shares; I think they must be the fifty which replaced the twenty Hongkong Fires as security for McQueen's loan to Bradfield.  The interest on the loan of Tls. 14,000 was reduced.  There was a certain amount of that loan - Tls. 11,000 - on which interest was payable for two years, I think, at 9 per cent., and after the term expired, I reduced the interest to the ordinary rate of 8 per cent.  I reduced the rate to 8 per cent without consulting the plaintiff because when the time for which the loan was borrowed at 9 per cent expired the interest was naturally reduced, and there was no necessity for me to consult the plaintiff.  I think the latest payment of interest which I made into the plaintiff's private account at the Hongkong Bank was made on the 8th October, 1883.  That was the interest due in August.  I think I must have known of Bradfield's intended departure in January, 1881, a month before he started.
  I do not remember telling Capt. McQueen about it, but I think he must have known from conversation.  I remember coming to you (Mr. Wainewright) for the bill of sale after the defendant's departure.  The reason I gave you was that I did not want it released because Mr. Bradfield might want another loan on it.  I said, let it stand as it is at present.  The 153 China Fires mentioned in the memorandum rendered to Mr. Bradfield in September, 1883, include the fifty hypothecated to McQueen.  I think it very likely that the power of attorney given me by McQueen was copied from a power of attorney drawn in tour (Mr. Wainewright's) office, for Purkiss, of Tientsin.  In 1883 I did not specially lend any money of McQueen's to Benjamin.  As far as I know, up to January, 1884, Capt. McQueen believed that his loans to Bradfield were still outstanding and fully secured.  The account rendered to Capt. McQueen on the 8th October, 1883, shows a debit and credit entry of Tls. 26,000, which shows that I had Tls. 26,000 of Capt. McQueen's which I invested in loans to Mr. Bradfield.  It does not mean that I had received the money from Bradfield to pay off the loans.
  Re-examined by the Crown Advocate - I receipted the debit notes I gave for interest to Bradfield and others before the plaintiff's departure for Europe.  I think Capt. McQueen never gave any receipts for interest himself.  I considered I could use McQueen's power of attorney when he was out of Shanghai, as long as I held it.  The lease referred to in McQueen's letter of the 7th October, 183, in which he says, :"If you happen to be in the bank you might take out the lease, and I will get it when I come down," must have been in McQueen's box in the Hongkong Bank.  I could not take it out without his authority.  I had the key of that box.  I think it must have been when I gave Captain McQueen back his papers that I delivered the key up to him.  The plaintiff has never paid me any commission on any of the transactions except the sale of shares; but he offered to do so frequently.  I intended to charge him commission when the accounts were squared, but we never arranged how much it should be.  It would have amounted, perhaps, to over a thousand taels, and that would have decreased my indebtedness to that extent.  I had no instructions from the defendant to pay off the loans; but I held his power of attorney, and I understood I was to pay them off when I could.  It would have been my duty to draft a memorandum of the exchange of security from the Hongkong Fires to China Fires if anyone had drafted it; but I considered it unnecessary because I considered that the memorandum of hypothecation of the twenty Hongkong shares sufficient to secure him.  I believe that up to the date when I rendered him an account in January, 1884, the plaintiff believed that his loans were still outstanding, and fully secured.  If I had put the money I received for shares into McQueen's private account I should very likely have drawn it out again, because I never kept more money there than I could help.  The Tls. 12,000 advanced on the bill of sale never passed through Captain McQueen's account at the bank, nor did he loan to Mr. Everall made in 1883. The shares for which I received Tls. 26,000 I March, 183, differed from the China Fires in this, that they were paid for by me, while the China Fires were paid for by Bradfield. There was very little money standing to t plaintiff's credit in his private account when he came out.  That might account for my not having drawn upon his private account after he came out.  Bradfield did not ask me for any receipts for repayment of his loans; but he did ask me to take the bill of sale out of Court; and the bill of sale could, of course, have then contained an endorsement acknowledging the payment of the money.  In the event of my raising more money on the bill of sale it would have been from Capt. McQueen that I got it; but I did not get any more on it from him.  I reported the reduction of the interest paid by Bradfield to McQueen.  McQueen never gave me any instructions about it; he left it entirely in my hands.
  As regards the plaintiff's money which I advanced on Benjamin's shares these shares were held by a bank transfer deed.  They may have been standing in Benjamin's name or any other name.  If the twenty Hongkong Fires had remained as security and I had sold them, I would not have disposed of the proceeds in any different way from that in which I disposed of the proceeds of the China Fires. I should not have credited Bradfield with the proceeds till I knew how his accounts stood.
  His Lordship asked the jury if they had any questions to put.
  Mr. Inverarty - As agent of the defendant you put at credit of the defendant's account Tls.
26,000 for loans by plaintiff to defendant.  Now we should like to know what amounts you
placed at debit of the defendant's account towards repayment of those loans, and on
what date?
  Witness - I did not place any amount to the debit of his account at all.  I disposed of his
shares and made up his accounts.  I placed the amount to his credit, and allowed him interest
on it for the time I held it; and it was not until the accounts were finally made up in December,
1883, that I credited the plaintiff's account with the amount.
  The Witness, further questioned by Mr.Inverarty, said he did not at once credit the
plaintiff's account with repayments made by the defendant.  I gave the accounts to the plaintiff after the 8th October, 1883, h credited the plaintiff with cash, Ts. 26,000.  That was the amount he (witness) held belonging to the plaintiff - he credited the plaintiff and debited himself with that amount.  The account simply showed how the cash was disposed of - where it was. Witness could not show anything to prove that the fifty China Fires substituted for the twenty Hongkong Fires as security for plaintiff's loans were ever in his possession.  He never had anything from the Hongkong Bank to sow what shares he held; but he could no doubt prove by the books of the Bank that these fifty shares had been deposited by him as security against overdrafts.  When he sold those shares he paid the money, as he had said, into his general account.  That money belonged to the plaintiff and not to himself, decidedly; but he considered that he had authority to use it in this way.
  Mr. Inverarty - It appears to me that you must have overdrawn your account previously on the security of those fifty shares belonging to McQueen?
  Witness - Not previously.  Ultimately it came to that.  - Further questioned, he said - the loan of Tls. 12,000 at the Agra Bank was in my name, not in Mr. BRadfield's.  I paid it off by a cheque on the Hongkong Bank.  i must then have had sufficient money at my credit at the Hongkong Bank - possibly money which had been lying out may have come in by that time.  I did not borrow from the Hongkong Bank on the security of the China Fires; I passed a cheque in on my account, on the securities held belonging to me - the China Fires were included among them.  I had no special funds provided by Capt. McQueen for that loan; but at the end of February I passed it in to Capt. McQueen's account.  I held the bill of sale from the beginning.  It was not deposited at the Agra Bank as security for the promissory note.  I never borrowed money on the bill of sale.
  On the 31st December, 1883, I sold over 200 Hongkong bank shares for the defendant.  The shares came from Hongkong I believe, and the bill became due at the end of November, and we sold in order to meet it.  I bought these shares for Mr. Bradfield and sold them for him.  Mr. Benjamin had nothing to do with them.  The shares were in my name up to the 31st December, 1883,  I think they came up from Hongkong in the name of the agents who sent them from Hongkong.  Mr. Benjamin signed the three promissory notes for Tls. 15,000 because he owed me money and partly out of friendship.  As agent for the plaintiff, I have lent Mr. Benjamin money - I think in 1882.  That load was repaid; and when I squared up accounts in 1884 there was no special loan outstanding to Mr. Benjamin.  Mr. Benjamin did not ask me to lend him any money towards the close of 1883 with a promise to pay shortly after the New Year, because he knew that I had no money available.  I cannot remember the date of my last loan to Mr. Benjamin - any loans he got latterly were on account.  I have not got certified copies of my account with the Hongkong and Agra Banks.
  Mr. Inverarty suggested that it might be advisable to have the witness's accounts with these banks before then.
  Witness - When I disposed of the fifty China Fires hypothecated to Capt. McQueen, I do not know that I held any security for Capt. McQueen in their place.  I held the money.
His Lordship - The Bank held it, you mean.
Witness (further questioned by Mr. Inverarty) - I did not tell Mr. Bradfield in March, 183, when I sold the shares, that the loan against the bill of sale was repaid. That loan was not repaid at all.  I realized all the Fire shares that I held for him in February and March, 1883, and then I believe there was a sufficient amount to pay off the bill of sale; but it was not done.  The plaintiff still held the bill of sale.
  The Witness, in answer to Mr. Butler, said he considered that all the Hongkong Fire shares he sold belonged to the defendant.
  Mr. Butler remarked that the defendant had said that he considered that the twenty Hongkong shares which were exchanged for China Fires belonged to the plaintiff.
  Defendant - Certainly I said they were sold on plaintiff's account.  They were not my affairs.
  The witness (Jamieson) said he defendant paid the commission on the sale.
  His Lordship - I am anxious to know how you effected the particular operation of an advance of Tls. 12,000 on a promissory note of your own.
  Witness - I was anxious to employ money of Capt. McQueen's.  I had not got any money of his at the moment; but I was anxious to make a good investment for him, and I could not do it any other way.
  His Lordship - Who paid the interest at the Agra Bank?
  Witness - Bradfield did.  I did not begin to credit McQueen's account with the interest until I debited him with the loan.
  The Crown Advocate - That is my case, my Lord.
  Mr. Wainewright then opened the case for the plaintiff.
  On the hearing being resumed in the afternoon,
  Robert McQueen, the plaintiff, was called and examined by M. Wainewright.  He said - I am a British subject, and master of the C. S. N. Co.'s str. Pekin.  I have been in China since 1857.  I had an interim of one year away in that time from 1869 to the spring of 1870.  The first business relation I had with Bradfield was in November, 1879, when Jamieson came and asked me if I had any money to lend. I had had no business relation with Jamieson before, except, perhaps, buying shares through him shortly before that.  I lent the defendant some other loans, and all the loans were consolidated into one mortgage for Tls. 10,000, in 1879, shortly before my departure for England.  Jamieson bought and sold shares for me, and he also negotiated a loan to Mr. Byrne, of Hall and Hurtz, as well as the loans o Bradfield.  The loan to Byrne was on a mortgage for Tl. 4,000. He had received no money for me whatever, except the interest on those loans which he had negotiated.  I was frequently absent from Shanghai, and it was therefore convenient for me to have some one to receive interest; and besides that I took a friendly interest in Jamieson and wished to show my trust in him and give him business.  I was then running between Shanghai and Hankow, and at that time we made trips of about ten days, and had intervals here of three or four days.  Before I left for England in 1879 I gave a power of attorney to Jamieson.  Wilmer Harris prepared tat power of attorney.  He made a copy from a power belonging to Mr. Purkiss of Tientsin.  We read it over before I signed it.  I was going to you (Mr. Wainewright), but he said his would be cheaper.
  Mr. Wainewright - You copied one of my powers of attorney because it w be cheaper - it is not an uncommon transaction.
  Witness - I never saw Mr. Harris in the matter, but I paid his charge.  I had an account at the Hongkong Bank, and they kept securities of mine in a large envelope in charge of the accountant.  I also had a deed box in which I kept title deeds which I did not want for months at a time; but all scrip was in the envelope.  Before leaving I came to a very distinct understanding with Mr. Jamieson as to how he was to manage my business - that all transactions on my behalf were to be kept distinctly separate from his own.  For that reason I left my bank pass-book with Jamieson, so that all payments or drawings out of the bank would be entered in my own pass-book, - passed through my account and not entered in his accounts at all.  I received his assurance that he would do so.  On the last night, when I was on board the Khica, a friend of mine remonstrated with me on board the steamer, saying that I was reposing too much confidence in any one man, no matter who he might be.  I repeated this to Jamieson, and he said I might rest assured that he would never betray my confidence, and that I might depend upon him to keep all my business transactions distinctly separate from his own, as he hoped for salvation, so that if anything happened to him I should be safe.  I wrote to him on the way home, and from England.  I wrote every fortnight from England.
  Mr. Wainewright read a number of entries from letters addressed by the plaintiff to Jamieson.
  Witness - I generally received letters from Mr. Jamieson fortnightly; and accounts were supposed to come every three months, but they came somewhat irregularly.  In those accounts there were occasional entries of loans on shares.  I understood that they referred to shares in his hands held for me as security for advances - that he had actually advanced on shares and received those shares and held them as my security - not his own shares, but other people's shares, who had borrowed money on the security of those shares and deposited them with Jamieson.  
  I certainly never at any time authorised Mr. Jamieson to advance money on shares of his own in the way that he has described, and it was never brought to my notice that he was doing so.  If anything in his letters was meant to convey that impression to my mind it certainly did not do so.  I was made aware by letter of the substitution of twenty Hongkong Fire shares for part of the mortgage on houses held by Jamieson for me as security.  I did not object to it.  I received the letter from Jamieson produced, dated 2nd March, 1880, with reference to the additional Tls. 3,000 advanced to Bradfield on the same Hongkong Fire shares. I also received the letter dated the 5th July, 1880.  I was never informed of the sale of the Hongkong Fires and the substitution of the China Fires.  I returned to Shanghai on the 8th March, 1883.  When I returned to Shanghai I understood my loan account against Mr. Bradfield to be one loan of Tls. 14,000, for which I held as security a mortgage on the "Poplars" for Tls. 4,000 and twenty Hongkong Fire shares; and Tls. 12,000 for which I held a bill of sale on Mr. Bradfield's share in the Medical Hall.  I only remained one day in Shanghai after my arrival, and went to Hankow; but on my return from there I naturally asked Jamieson about my securities, and for an account current, so that we might square up matters and finish his agency, or power of attorney.  I certainly did not contemplate his continuing to act on the power of attorney.  I told him distinctly that I should resume charge of my own affairs.  I considered that the power of attorney lapsed immediately on my return to China.
  I told Mr. Jamieson that I wished to look over my securities, and accompanied him to the office.  He opened a safe and took out a large envelope with my name upon it and said "all your securities are in this," and said they would be more come-atable in his place than they would be in the bank.  Unfortunately I took his word for it that they were all correct, and did not look at them. At the same time he showed me a book, and said, "All your accounts are in here, and if you want to refresh your memory at any time you can come and have a look at it." He did not give me an account.  He said he had sent an account to me in January, which had missed me, and I had better wait till that returned.  I received that account about the end of April.  It was to the end of December, 1882.  I repeatedly asked for an account to the end of June; but I did not get one till the 8th October.  This (produced) is the account I received then.  Before getting that account I frequently spoke to Jamieson about Bradfield's loans.  I told him I thought Mr. Bradfield had far too much money of mine, and I did not like the bill of sale as security.  It was nothing tangible in my opinion; and I asked him to pay it off, knowing that he held Bradfield's power of attorney. He told me that Mr. Bradfield was coming out at the end of the year, and I had better wait till then.  When Mr. Bradfield came out I spoke to Jamieson at once immediately after I saw Mr. Bradfield.  I said "Now that Bradfield has arrived, tell him that I wish one of those loans paid off at once." He said he would do so.  This was at the end of 1883, shortly after Mr. Bradfield's return.  I may say I asked Jamieson about it after my trip.  He never gave me to understand that he had spoken to Bradfield about it.  He always promised to do so, and led me to believe that Bradfield was not going away for some time, and everything would be all right.  I never spoke to Bradfield about it myself; I never spoke to Bradfield on business at all.
  After I returned to Shanghai, Jamieson never signed any more cheques in my name.  He paid the interest on Bradfield's loan - I think as Bradfield's agent.  He received no other money from me except interest.  He paid the interest to my credit at the bank.  He negotiated a loan on mortgage to me to Mr. Everall.  That loan was got at my request.  I gave Mr. Jamieson to understand that I had no intention of touching shares, and I wanted a mortgage to employ my balance.  He told me that he had got the mortgage for me, and I signed it myself.  After I returned, Mr. Jamieson did not act as my agent in any other way than he had done before I left for England.  I decidedly never at any time authorized Mr. Jamieson to receive payments in account for me.  I was never informed by Jameson that the Hongkong Fire shares were no longer available for me as securities; I discovered that they were not among the other securities when I opened the envelope in Jamieson's office on the 25th January, 1884.  Mr. Jamieson never at any time gave me an account as between me and him and Bradfield.  I received the account produced, dated 25th February, 1884.  I knew on the 24th February from Jamieson that Bradfield had made a payment of a thousand taels to my credit.  I was not then aware that Mr. Jamieson had endorsed the cheque "Robert McQueen, by his attorney, W. B. JAMIESON." I decidedly consider that he had no authority to endorse it so.  I did not know that Bradfield was going away until after he was gone.  On the 24th January, Jamieson told me he was gone.  I was very much surprised, because I had repeatedly told him that I should not allow Bradfield to go away, if I could prevent it, till he paid off one of the loans.  I first learnt that something was wrong on the 24th January, 1884.  On my arrival on that date Jamieson came on board to see me as he usually did, and told me that Bradfield was gone.  I said "How is that? I understood he was not going for some time."  He said Bradfield had made up his mind to go at once.  I said "Which of the two loans has he arranged to pay off?" assuming that he had arranged to pay off one, as I had repeatedly told him that he was not to let Bradfield go until one was paid.  He said "Neither."  He then said, "I have very bad news for you.  I have lost all my own money, and some of yours is in jeopardy." I at once said, "There can't be much of mine in jeopardy you had such a small balance in the last account rendered."  I took out my last account rendered, dated 8th October.  I commenced reading, and asking the first of Bradfield's loans. Tls. 14,000, I said, "Is this all right?"  He said, "No." I said, "Bradfield's loan, Tls. 12,000.  Is that all right?"  He said, "No."  I was rather astonished.  I said, "Good God, man! What's the matter with you?"  I read the other loans, and he said they were all right.  He then gave a very disjointed explanation.  He said he had lost all his money, and other people's; but he begged I would say nothing at all about it, and he believed it would all come right.  He was very much agitated, and made no intelligent explanation.  He did not say he had received any money from Bradfield.
  The next day, the 25th January, I met him at the club early in the morning, and we went to his office.  He handed me the envelope which he had previously shown me as containing my securities, and I opened it and found that were no Hongkong Fires there, except my own; and the bill of sale on the Medical Hall was also missing.  He said the Hongkong Fire shares had been sold a long time ago.  I asked where the money had gone, and he said, "To Bradfield."  The bill of sale he said was at your (Mr. Wainewright's) office.  I asked what it was doing there, and he said Mr. Bradfield had intended paying it off, but at the last moment required the money for another purpose.  I blamed him for not having told me anything at all about this matter, and asked, "How could you release the bill of sale unless I was there to sign it? Did you intend to sign it?" He said, "Yes."  I added, "You know you have no power to do anything of the sort.  Do you know what this sort of thing means to you, Jamieson?"  His answer was, "Yes - imprisonment."  I requested him to go and get the bill of sale at once.  He said he could not do so.  Then I asked him if he could not get me some security, to which he answered that he would give me a bill of sale on his furniture - which he never did - the title deeds of a lot of land in Nagasaki, and promissory notes for Tls. 15,000., He subsequently gave me the Nagasaki title deeds and three promissory notes for Tls. 4,000 each.  At that interview he took a book down and made a calculation with regard to bank shares that he owned, and said he had no doubt that if I kept perfectly quiet and said nothing to any body all would come well. He then left to go to Mr. Wainewright for the bill of sale, and I went o m board.  He gave me no intelligible account of ow the loss came about.  He said something about Benjamin, but he was overwhelmed with grief or shame - I should imagine the latter.  
  That afternoon he came and told me that you (Mr. Wainewright) were up country, and he brought me the three promissory notes.  I told him I considered them valueless, but would hold them as collateral security.  They were endorsed by Benjamin.  I told him that as he said Mr. Benjamin had lost all his (Jamieson's) money and that of others, he had better go to Benjamin and get some security from him.  When he came back first he told me that Benjamin had no security whatever to give, and all he could do was to back those notes for him.
  The Plaintiff, further examined by Mr. Wainewright, said - Mr. Jamieson then owed me money on his account - some Tls. 1,500 or Tls. 1,600.  I considered that my claim against Mr. Bradfield was as good as ever - I had been told nothing to the contrary.  I took the promissory notes because I had no account and did not know at all what had become of my money, and I was glad to get anything in the shape of security.  I did not consider that by accepting those notes I was releasing Mr. Bradfield, and personally I knew I had never released him. I have been informed that the Nagasaki property is worth $1,000.  Mr. Jamieson has never paid me any part of the Tls. 1,500 or Tls. 1,600. I sent and got the rent on the Nagasaki property up to the end of June - Tls. [210]; but nothing else on this account.  I first found out how the matter really stood with regard to Bradfield's loans when I got my memo of how things sod - a month after we had had that interview.  It is dated the 25th February.  The interest on these two loans to Bradfield has only been paid up to August, 1883.
  Mr. Wainewright put in several items with reference to the Nagasaki property and other matters.
  Plaintiff - I did not take away my power of attorney from Jamieson, because I did not see any necessity to withdraw it. In my opinion it was rendered valueless as an instrument by my return to China this April, and I should then have used it again.  I did not take away any of my securities from Mr. Jamieson's custody on my return.  Mr. Bradfield has never applied to me to return the bill of sale.  I have had no communication whatever from him on business matters.
  Cross-examined by the Crown Advocate the plaintiff said - Previous to my departure I arranged loans to Mr. Byrne and Benjamin on shares.  I had forgotten about that when I mentioned before what Jamieson had done for me prior to my departure.  I received Jamieson's letter of the 6th Feb., in which he says:- "The amount outstanding against my name is against shares on general account - shares held by the Bank, I cannot well make it a special loan, as he securities are constantly changing; and it is convenient to me to employ your balance in this way."  That conveyed nothing to my mind contrary to that he was obtaining full and ample security for every loan.  I most decidedly drew from that the inference that he had specific shares as security for the money.  He was certainly overstepping his instructions altogether if he risked my money without proper security.  I do not interpret that letter as you do.  That conveyed to my mind that he was advancing the money on the security of shares; I certainly did not understand that it was placed against an over-draft at the bank.  
  During the early part of 1882 I was rendered unfit to attend to business matters by the state of my health, and I may not have paid much attention to that passage.  I considered that those items of loans "on shares in my (Jamieson's) hands to employ funds," meant that he had advanced money on specific shares in his hands.  I never supposed that my money was going into a general account, with no security whatever - into a general account for speculation in shares on his own account.  I do not remember hearing from Bradfield himself how long he was going to stay here.  I understood he was going away in a few months.  I understood that he was going to pay up one of my loans before he left, and I trusted to what Jamieson had told me.  I told Jamieson to let me know when Mr. Bradfield was going, and if I had known when he was going I should have gone to him first about the loan.  I suppose if I had opened the envelope when Jamieson first showed it to me I should have found out that the Hongkong Fires were not there.  I suppose if there was any blame attached to that, I was to blame for not looking at the securities.  I never supposed that Mr. Jamieson was anything but an honest man.  I admit now that it was a mistake on my part to trust to my attorney's word and not open the envelope and look at the securities; but I think such things are often done without any harm arising.  I should certainly never do it again; but you cannot expect me to admit that I was wrong in the matter.  I am the suffered by it. If Jamieson had told me at the time that the fifty China Fires had been substituted for the twenty Hongkong Fires I should have preferred to realise my money.
  The Crown Advocate - And that is exactly what he did.
  Mr. Wainewright - Except that he did not pay the money to Capt. McQueen - a trifling difference.
  Plaintiff - I do not deny that Jamieson had full power to make the substitution of the shares.  I admit that I wrote those letters frequently urging Mr. Jamieson to keep my money employed, and to advance it on any safe security.  I looked upon Mr. Jamieson as a man who had lost all his money at one time and would not risk it again; and when I said he was to use the money as if it was his own, I meant that he was not to risk anything.  I did not put it in writing that he was to keep separate accounts.  Jamieson never charged himself to me with having received the payment of Bradfield's loans until after he gave me the promissory notes.  If those promissory notes had been paid at maturity I cannot tell whether I should still have a claim against Bradfield.  When I accepted those promissory notes Bradfield's name had never been mentioned to me in the matter. If I cashed those notes I should take them as being cashed on Mr. Bradfield's account and come on him for any difference.  I look upon the account of Feb., 26th, 1884, as a concoction of Mr. Jamieson.  According to that Mr. Bradfield owes me only Tls. 6,500; but I look upon that as worthless.  If Bradfield owes me Tls. 26,000, Jamieson owes me from Tls. 1,200 to Tls. 1,700; and then I have a commission to pay him which I will pay when I get the money.  He has estimated it as something over Tls. 1,000, and I do not object to that estimate.  Jamieson would then only owe me a few hundred taels. I consider that my loan to Bradfield is intact, and that Jamieson owes me only a few hundred taels.  I did not give him back the promissory notes; but I told Jamieson I refused to accept his account and held Bradfield responsible for the amount of his loan. I was told that a lot of my money was list; Bradfield's name was never mentioned at all; and I therefore kept the promissory notes, because I thought it best to hold on to whatever security I could get.
  Mr. Wainewright then put in a number of letters and the Court adjourned.
10th February.
  Mr. Wainwright replied for the plaintiff, and the Crown Advocate for the defence.
  His Lordship then summed up. He said - gentlemen of the Jury, I am glad that we have arrived at the concluding stage of this case.  We certainly have not gone on very quickly; but at the same time we must console ourselves with the reflection that cases do not go very quickly in the Royal Courts of Justice.  I see by my Times of this mail that there have been three cases, one of which, in the Chancery Court, lasted for three weeks; another, a case against an Insurance Company, - not a very important case, - lasted eight days; and a divorce case  lasted nine days.  Perhaps, therefore, we need not think ourselves so very slow.
  Well Gentlemen, I do not think this is a case which will give you a great deal of trouble now that we have arrived at the end; and though I am glad to have had your assistance I hardly think it was necessary to Call a jury at all.  The issues are very simple, and very narrow.  The question of interest being set aside, and he points in dispute being now limited to two loans, it would seem that you can very easily arrive at a conclusion in regard to each of those.  About the first loan, of Tls. 10,000, I shall feel it my duty to give you my opinion very clearly, because it is mainly a matter of law.  The loan of Tls. 4,000 on the mortgage, it has been admitted, has not been repaid; and I am now speaking of the loan of Tls. 10,000, which I may call the consolidated loan.  It seems to me to be quite clear, and it is in fact admitted, that the plaintiff was aware of the substitution for the security of the land and property of the "Poplars," of twenty Hongkong Fire Insurance shares.  He was aware of this, and did not object to it.  And we cannot doubt, I think, that it was within the scope of Jamieson's authority to substitute the twenty Hongkong Fire shares.  That being done, I think it is equally clear that the substitution again for the China Fire shares was an act within the scope of Jamieson's authority; and consequently the plaintiff, Capt. McQueen, was bound by that substitution.  Then comes the question whether the defendant Bradfield was bound, as Mr. Wainewright contended, to see that the shares were put in a place of security and safety for Capt. McQueen.  Now, Gentlemen, I seems to me that that is a contention that it is impossible to succeed in.
  Mr. Wainewright said his contention was that there had been no real substitution.
  His Lordship - However, there seems to be no doubt that the China Fires were bought with the money produced by the sale of the Honkong Fires, and that it was the intention of Mr. Bradfield that those shares should take the place of the Hongkong Fires; and so far as Mr. Bradfield is concerned it seems to me that he did all that could be expected of him.  I do not see how he could possibly be expected to see that the shares were put by Jamieson, who was acting as agent for the plaintiff, into the envelope containing the plaintiff's securities or into his box at the Hongkong Bank.  So long as he saw that they came into the hands of Jamieson as the plaintiff's agent, it seems to me that Bradfield did all that on him lay; and consequently he will have to be relieved of responsibility.  I think therefore you will have to find that the China Fire shares properly took the place of the Hongkong Fire shares; and when they were realised, as much as was required to pay off that particular loan was in fact so applied by Jamieson.  You must consider the facts yourselves; but it seems to me sufficiently clear that upon that point the defendant must succeed.  
  There only remains the question of the Tls. 10,000 loan; and on that I do not think you need trouble yourselves to consider anything further than whether there is any evidence that the defendant's money was applied by Mr. Jamieson to the liquidation of the loan covered by the bill of sale.  Against it you will have the fact that the bill of sale is outstanding, - it has never been cancelled.  By that bill of sale the defendant undertakes to pay the plaintiff Tls. 12,000; and I do not find, either in my memory of the evidence, or looking back at my notes, or in the printed report of the evidence given by Jamieson - a witness in favour of the defendant - that he did apply this money in discharging this land; and although I have it not in my nots I find in the shorthand writer's notes a distinct statement on the part of Jamison, in reply to Mr. Inverarty - I think you will remember it yourselves - to the following effect:- "I did not tell Mr. Bradfield in March, 183, when I sold his shares, that the loan against the bill of sale was repaid.  That loan was no repaid at all.  I realised all the shares I had for him in February and March, 1883, and then I believe there was a sufficient amount to pay off the bill of sale; but it was not done." According to that - it is not in my own notes - he did distinctly make that statement; and it seems to me - although I have it not in my notes - that it is distinctly in accord with his intentions.  He wished that loan repaid, and that he paid Jamieson very considerable funds towards paying it cannot be doubted; and there is no doubt he intended to pay Jamieson more funds for the purpose by the sale of the "Poplars."  But the sale of the "Poplars" fell through, and it is very doubtful whether Jamieson was ever in a position to take up and pay off the bill of sale. At any rate it was not cancelled, and I think you will find it never was paid off.
  There are two points you have to decide.  There is no doubt that there was a payment of T;s. 1,000 cash; and therefore, the total of the loan being Tls. 26,000, that Tls. 1,000 in cash would obviously reduce it to Tls. 25,000.  Then there is Tls. 10,000 paid off - as I think you will find it was paid off - by the sale of the China Fires.  That would reduce it to Tls. 15,000.
  Then, of course, the defendant admits that he is indebted somewhere about Tls. 7,000; so that if you agree with me you will find a verdict of somewhere about Tls. 8,000 in addition to the Tls. 7,000 that the defendant admits.  No doubt this is one of those cases, unfortunately too common, in which an agent or middle man, entrusted with funds, gets into difficulties and employs them for his own purposes.  Somebody must suffer, and you have to consider who is the person who, by his negligence or carelessness has put himself in the position of being defrauded in this way?  Well, here probably both parties have been in a way negligent.  There is no doubt that Captain McQueen appears to have reposed unmerited confidence in Jamieson; and Mr. Bradfield, by putting his name to that bill of sale and not seeing it cleared off, and also by entrusting his funds in this way to Mr. Jamieson, had run a very considerable risk. Unfortunately in such cases innocent people must suffer.  I do not think you will find any difficulty in arriving at a decision.  You must consider the two cases separately. I do not wish to guide you absolutely; but I think you will have no doubt about it that the loan of Ts. 10,000 has been paid off by the sale of the China shares.  
  Then as to the question whether the proceeds of those other shares have been appropriated, on account, to the payment of this loan on the bill of sale, it seems to me the natural thing to wait until you have got the whole amount of money, and then clear it off and discharge the bill of sale.  I do not think it is necessary for me to say more.
  We have only got to take your verdict on the amount of principal due by the defendant.  It is admitted that Tls. 6,855 is due, and it is for you to say whether anything more is due besides.  If you take the view that the loan of Tls. 1,000 has been repaid, and the loan of Tls. 12,000 is outstanding, your conclusion will be very clear and simple; if you think both have been paid, it will be equally simple.
  Mr. Inverarty - There is one point I should like to have explained.  It seems that the plaintiff gave a power of attorney to Mr. Jamieson available during his absences from China.  He returned to China on the 8th March, 1883, and Mr. Jamieson sold his shares on that day.
  His Lordship - We may assume that he sold them in the belief that the plaintiff was absent.  I should think his authority to sell them must be taken as sufficient.
  The Jury then retired to consider their verdict.  They were absent about ten minutes.  On their returning, his Lordship asked - Gentlemen, have you agreed upon your verdict?
  Mr. Inverarty - We find that the plaintiff granted loans to defendant for Tls. 26,000; that defendant paid the sum of Tls. 11,000, leaving a balance of Tls. 15,000, exclusive of interest, due from the defendant to the plaintiff.
  His Lordship - Very well, then that is a verdict for the plaintiff for taels eight thousand ---
  Mr. Wainewright - For Tls. 15,000, my Lord.  Nothing has been paid into Court.
  His Lordship - Very well.  Then the interest I shall have to sit upon - or are you going to agree upon it?
  Mr. Wainewrght - If we cannot agree, I suppose your Lordship will allow us to apply to you?
  Hs Lordship - Yes, but you will not trouble the Jury with it?
  Mr. Wainewright - No. With regard to costs, my Lord ---
  His Lordship - Each side must bear its own costs.  I think that is quite clear.
  Mr. Wainewright - Perhaps your Lordship will hear us upon that when we come to the final decree?
  His Lordship - Yes; but my present impression is that each side will bear its own costs.  Judgment is reserved.
  Mr. Butler said before separating he wished to ask whether in cases like these juries were usually paid for their services.
  His Lordship said I was not usual.
  Mr. Wainewright thought it would be a very god thing if they were paid.  In Hongkong they were paid $10 a day.
  His Lordship - Well, we will take it into consideration for the future.

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