Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Rosenzweig v. Morgan, 1889


Rosenzweig v. Morgan

Supreme Court for China and Japan
Rennie CJ, 27 May 1889
Source: North China Herald, 1 June 1889

Shanghai, 27th May 1889
Before Sir R. T. Rennie, Chief Justice.
 This was a claim for $389.17, money had and received on account of the plaintiff, and for the price of goods sold and not accounted for.
  Mr. Browett appeared for the plaintiff.
  The defendant appeared in person.
  Mr. Browett said that defendant had been employed by the plaintiff to sell certain goods, on commission at some of the northern ports, and that this suit had been brought to compel payment of an outstanding balance. He then read the pleadings, which were as follows -
[Not transcribed.]
  His Lordship said that defendant had not taken any pains to furnish proper accounts of the business himself and he had not succeeded in showing that the account made out by plaintiff was incorrect, there would consequently be judgment for plaintiff for the whole amount claimed and costs.

Source: North China Herald, 15 June 1889

June 7th.
Before Sir. R. T. Rennie, Chief Justice.
  Mr. Harold Browett, on behalf of the plaintiff, Mr. H. Rosenzweig, applied this morning under sec. 131, Sub-Sec. 3 of the rules of the Supreme Court, to commit to prison for forty days Mr. Geo. Morgan, the defendant, against whom a judgment had been obtained under circumstances already reported.  The application was before the court on Wednesday when the defendant was examined as to his ability to pay and stated that he had no money and had been living on his friends for some time.  Mr. Browett cross-examined him as to what he had done with the money which he had collected, and the money representing goods supplied by the plaintiff, and for which he had not accounted, and it was admitted that he applied it to his own use without any authority from the plaintiff.
  This morning the defendant was further examined and Mr. Browett said that since the last hearing further sums and goods had been found to be unaccounted for.
 The defendant said he had accounted for all the goods sold by him, and all the money he received, but that he had to pay his expenses and believed he could borrow the money to pay the deficiency.  He admitted writing a letter to Mr. Rosenzweig stating that he would bring round the money, and on cross-examination said that a friend, a Chinaman, residing in the city, had promised to lend him the amount, but he refused to give the Chinaman's name to plaintiff's counsel. .  .  .  .   
  His Lordship said he was perfectly satisfied in his own mind that the defendant had committed a very gross breach of trust.  According to defendant's own admission, and whether he had tried to account for the money or not, there was no doubt that he had been guilty of a gross breach of trust, and His Lordship did not think that the committal for forty days asked for was too heavy a penalty, and the defendant was thereupon committed for that period.


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