Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Ling v. Morgan, 1888

[bill of sale]

Ling v. Morgan

Supreme Court for China and Japan
Jamieson AAJ, 6 February 1888
Source: North China Herald, 10 February 1888

LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'s SUPREME COURT.
Shanghai, 6th February,
Before Geo. Jamieson, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge.
LING TSZU SAN v. GEO. MORGAN.
  The defendant, who was not professionally represented, was sworn and deposed - I was in the employment of the Hall & Holtz Co-operative Co. Limited, up to the 1st February, 1886, at a salary of $150 a month, finding myself.  I was afterwards managing the business of Mack & Co.'s livery stables up to 4th June, 1887, at a salary of $75.  The partners were, I believe, Mr. A. Mack, and Wah Kee Mie.  I took over the business on the 1st July 1887.  I produce the deed of sale, marked A, signed by Wah Kee Mie, and dated July 8th, 1887.
  I gave the bill of sale in favour of Mr. F. C. Bishop, of the Chartered Mercantile Bank of India, London and China, dated 2nd July 1887, and covering carriages, ponies, and everything connected with the business.  I got a cheque from Mr. Bishop for taels 3,000, on signing the bill of sale - I believe the day after. I handed the cheque at once to Wah Kee Mie, in part payment of the purchase money.  There was no writing between Wah Kee Mie and myself in the matter, save the promissory notes, which I have to him for the balance.  I owe him Tls. 1,200.  Wah Kee Mie is not, and has not since the day of the purchase, a partner of mine in any shape or form.  I gave Shing Dah a promissory note for Tls.  400 odd, which was guaranteed by Wah Kee Mie.  This was really Wah Kee Mie's debt when I bought the business.  This was arranged for in another document.  Wah Kee Mie often came to look at the stables.  I have an idea that Wah Kee Mie owed Mr. Bishop the money, and that the bill of sale was really given to cover his debt.  Wah Kee Mie told me to call on m. Bishop.  He had arranged the thing before I went.  Wah Kee Mie told me that Mr. Bishop would send the money if I asked him.  I did so, and he gave me the money.
  The plaintiff in this case was engaged by me as compradore from the 1st July 1887.  Wu Ku Lien introduced him to me as a good man, who would advance me Tls. 750 for one year.  He was to find two shroffs and servants, and was to receive $45 a month for wages and interest and everything.  The Tls. 750 were paid to Wah Kee Mie as part of the purchase money.  My property is now to be sold by the order of the older of the bill of sale. Some of the ponies to be sold have been bought by me since.  I cannot say how many without reference to my books.  I have bought some harness - one set.  I really got it by exchange. On the 1st or 2nd February, I found people removing my property.  Mr. Mackenzie was superintending it.  He said he had an order from Mr. Bishop's legal adviser to remove things.  I consider the ponies, etc., worth over taels 6,000.
  The further hearing of the case was adjourned till tomorrow.

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