Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Mayers v. Emanuel, 1898

[breach of contract]


 

Mayers v. Emanuel

United States Consular Court, Yokohama

13 January 1898

Source: The Japan Times, 23 December 1897


 

ACTION FOR DAMAGES.

   The case of MYERS versus EMMANUEL, in which yen 7,200 is claimed for breach of contract, was called for hearing in the United States Consular Court, Yokohama, yesterday morning, but as the Court was occupied with another serious charge, it was again adjourned until the 11th prox.


 

The Japan Times, 13 January 1898

MAYERS v. EMANUEL.

   The above suit, in which the plaintiff is suing the defendant for damages to the amount of 7,200 yen for alleged breach of contract, was resumed in the United States Consular Court this afternoon. 

   The defendant, A. H. Emanuel, the only witness called for the defence, gave his evidence, in which he contended that the plaintiff had never been employed by himself, and that the agreement of July 7th, 1897, between them, was altogether dependent upon the subsequent formation of a legal partnership between himself and Mr. Mondon, which never took place. This point of view, he said, was perfectly understood by the plaintiff. The witness was subjected to a severe cross-examination by Mr. Uchiyama Rossetsu, in the course of which it was shown that the defendant's brother, acting under power of attorney, had written to the Pacific Meat Company of Lacoma, whose agent the plaintiff was, informing them that the plaintiff was in the employ of Emanuel, Mondon & Co., and the fact was elicited that the defendant had not written to contradict that assertion until December 2nd. After both counsel had addressed the Court, judgment was reserved until tomorrow afternoon at 3 o'clock.


 

The Japan Times, 14 January 1898

MAYERS v. EMANUEL.

   Judgment in the suit of J. L. Mayers v. A. H. Emanuel, claiming 7,200 yen damages for breach of contract, was rendered in the United States Consular Court this afternoon.  The plaintiff was awarded damages to the amount of 650 yen, and the costs of the case were taxed to the defendant. Mr. Scidmore, counsel for the latter, gave notice of appeal.

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