Your search within this document for 'supreme' resulted in 14 matching pages.
1

“...SUPREME COURT & CONSULAR GAZETTE, And Law Reporter for the Supreme & Provincial Courts of China & Japan. Vol. I SHANGHAI, SATURDAY, 5th JANUARY, 1867. No. 1 CONTENTS. Leading Articles. Page. Introductory..................................1 British Subjects of Chinese Descent. .........1 Notes on case of Yu-kee v. Preston, Breuell & Co.3 Cases in Supreme Court. Glover & Co. v. Ship Trebolgan................3 Francis v. Overweg & Co. Judgment.............4 Yu-kee v. Preston, Breuell & Co...............4 Police Cases..................................6 Summary Jurisdiction Cases....................6 Cases in U. S. Consular Court. Comptoir d’Escompte v. Bussell & Co...........6 NOTIFICATIONS H. B M. Supreme Court. TIIE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1861. In tiie Court of Bankruptcy. Shanghai, the 31s£ day of Pec., 1866. In the matter of Bowley Miller, a Bankrupt. Before Sir Edmund Hornby, Knt. Chief Judge. MEMORANDUM.—At the adjourned public sitting held this day for the said bankrupt to pass his last examination...”
2

“...SUPREME COURT & CONSULAR GAZETTE. French Consulate TRIBUNAL DE COMMERCE DU CONSULAT GENERAL DE FRANCE A SHANGHAI. OUR la requete presentee par le Sr. A. Funk n6goci- ► i Ant, demeurant a Shanghai, agissant an noin de M. M. E. Fiertz et Cie, le Tribunal du Commerce du Consulat G An Aral de France, par son jugement du 31 Decembre 1866 a dAclarA en At at de faillite le Sr. 0. Aubert, conun sous le nom de 0. Aubert & Cie. et a fixe provisoircment l’ouvertrue au 29 Decembre 1866, Par lc mAme jugement, M. Bovet, assesseur au Tri- bunal Consulaire a AtA nomine juge-commissare et le Sr. Borel, syndic provisoire de la elite faillite. Le failli a Ate dispense de la garde de sa personne et l’apposition des scellAs a son domicile a AtA or ordonnee. Le present extrait a AtA affichA a la chancelleric du Consulat General de France par le Greffier soussigne cn execution dc Part. 442 du Code de Commerce. Le Chancelier faisant fonctions de Greffier. Abe. REY. Pour legalisation de la Signature du Chancelier...”
3

“...January nth 1867. SUPREME COURT & CONSULAPt GAZETTE. 1 Supreme (Court anb (Consular,(Sijettc- Shanghai, January 5th, 1837. The object of the present publication is to a cer- tain extent explained by its title ; but it may, perhaps, be not inexpedient to go a little more into detail. The Proprietors look to a pecuniary advantage, as they believe a publication such as the present, will supply a want which has long been felt; and that accurate reports of cases and of decisions in the Supreme Court on questions of Mercantile Law cannot fail to be interesting to a community whose whole prosperity is bound up in Commerce and Trade. Criminal and Po- lice Reports possess an interest of their own, and an occasional reminder of what conduct consti- tutes an infraction of the Criminal Law may not be without its value, distant as Shanghai is from places where Journalism affords a daily record of how crime is committed and punished. No reflection is intended on the praiseworthy en- deavours, or on the...”
4

“...2 SUPREME COURT & CONSULAR GAZETTE. January 5th 1867. Now this may, at first sight, appear to be hard upon our Chinese fellow subjects; but to be so, we must be prepared to insist that it is so on ourselves. No man, however, has a right to con sider himself aggrieved, because the privileges which two distinct nationalities may afford, are denied to him ; and still less can he complain if in asserting his right to the privileges of both, he disclaims the disabilities to which, as a subject of one of those nationalites, he is liable. Let it be assumed for the moment, that a British subject of Anglo Saxon descent, cannot under the Treaty reside in the interior of China—his place of re- sidence being limited to certain Ports and other places, specially mentioned in the Treaty; and the question then arises, why should a British subject of Chinese descent? That which is good for Pe- ter is good for Paul; and although it may be des- irable to obtain a concession in favor of one class of British...”
5

“...separate re- ceipt for it, the other was liable not because the money was misappropriated, but because it was received. So in this case, Messrs. Preston, Breu- ell SUPREME COURT. Before Sir E. Hornby, Chief Judge. 18G0 Dec. ilth Glover & Co. versus the Trebolgax. Claim for redeliverg of'iOl Pkgs. of Cargo. Mr. Myburgh for the Plaintiff, Mr. Eames for tlie Defendant. In this case the Plaintiff claimed tlie re-delivery of certain goods placed on board the ship7W6o/
6

“...any thing against the Chinese contractor they would pay the rent due and the first instalment of 600 Taels, and i n con- sequence of this arrangement certain proceedings com- menced in the Supreme Court -were withdrawn. From this letter it appeared that the’ claim against the Chinaman was to be for 1,200 Taels, and if it failed it is clear that Overweg & Co., were to pay them rent and interest. Only 600 Taels was given against the Chinaman, and I think it may be fairly assumed from this letter that Messrs. Overweg were to stand by the decision against the Chinaman. I accordingly decree that on the first action Mr. Francis do recover from Messrs. Overweg 1,200 Taels with costs of suit, and that on the cross action Messrs. Overweg & Co., do recover from Mr. Francis 600 Taels with costs of suit. SUPREME COURT. Before Sir Edmund Hornby, Chief Judge. Dec^V&th Yeu-kee, v. Preston, Breuell & Co. Compradore—Liability of Master for acts of. Where a Compradore, acting as the servant of his mas- ter...”
7

“...January 5th 1867. SUPREME COURT & CONSULAR GAZETTE. have been so engaged for 16 years. I know the firm of Preston, Breuell & Co. as the Kung Sing Hong. I have had several transactions with them. The dealings have spread over a year and a half since they established. Last year several, this year a few. I know Mr. Pre- ston. When I had transactions last year, I saw him ; this year I only saw the compradore. The reason of this was that Mr. Preston before going to London told me to apply to the compradore to conclude any Opium transactions. I gave Bank orders to the Compradore because his Master did not know what was written in them. The entry in my book whenever I purchased was as from the Kung Sing Hong. There was a memo, of a contraot of the settlement of 5 Chests Opium with Preston, Breuell & Co. on the 15tli Nov. There were also several other entries in the name of Preston, Bre- uell & Co. I am a member of the Swatow Guild. They- deal in Opium. They know the customs of the dif- ferent...”
8

“...6 SUPREME COURT & CONSULAR GAZETTE. Jaitiiary 5th 18G7 order was wrong, I brought’ it back to Preston, Breuell & Co’s office. Mr. Preston laughed and said he would send one man to the French Bank, and one to look after the compradore. He said afterwards that he could not settle the matter till’ he got hold of the compradore, and tliat I had better come next day. We went on Sunday, but the office was closed. I went again on Mon- day. I saw Mr. Preston. He said he did not understand the order, nor did it belong to him. I entered these goods as bought from the Kung Sing Hong. Cross examined. This was the first time I had bought Opium from Preston, Breuell & Co. Yin Loo ng.—One of the Plaintiffs, an Opium mer- chant belonging to the Swatow Guild, gave substantial- ly the same story of the purchase as the previous witnesses, and handed in an order of the same nature as those given in previously. (This closed the case for the Plaintiffs.) December 14/A. Mr. Mitchell in opening his defence proposed...”
9

“...January 5th 1867. SUPREME COURT &’ CONSULAR GAZETTE. Mr. Eames for the Plaintiffs. Mr. .Myburgii for the Defendants. In this case the Plaintiffs claimed the value or the delivery of 40 Cases of Lustres, 40„ Cases so designated having been deposited.by o^e Fohkee in the Godowns of the Defendants ; but which subsequently proved not to contain Lustres, but to be tilled with peas and straw. The Defendants had signed a receipt for the goods as “40 Cases Lustres,” and at the request of the Plaintiffs, endorsed it to the latter, who had been asked to advance $1*2,000 upon them. It was contended for the Plaintiffs that the Defend- ants having given a receipt for the goods and endorsed it to the Plaintiffs, under circumstances which raised the presumption that the endorsement was required as a preliminary to the advance of money, the Defendants were estopped from denying as against the Plaintiffs who did advance such money upon the faith of such receipt, the plain legal bearing of such receipt and...”
10

“...8 SUPREME COURT & CONSULAR GAZETTE. January 5t,h 1867 Hypothecation dated the Eighteenth day of July A.D. 1866 signed by Woo-kee, the undermentioned Goods were pledged to the said Comptoir d’Escompte de Paris, by the said Woo-kee as security for advances made by the said Comptoir d’Escompte de Paris. I further give you notice not to deliver the said Goods, or any part thereof, to any person or persons whomsoever, except upon an order of the said Woo-kee endorsed by the Agent for the time being of the said COMPTOIR D’ESCOMPTE de Paris. I am, Your obedient Servant, Ed. MOREL. Art tu g J/a/mj/er. Property lubove referred to. No. o08g^ a (jjaiuonj Forty Boxes Lustres. Enclosed the said order which kindly transfer to this Bank. Judynant.. On the 17th of August last, a Chinese named Foo- kee borrowed at the Comptoir d’Escompte 812,000 and deposited as collateral security a plain godown receipt signed by the Superintendent of the Kin-le-yuen go- downs for which Russell & Co. are Agents, for B...”
11

“...January 5M8&7. SUPREME COURT & CONSULAR GAZETTE. 9 liable by the Supreme Court to certain opium dealers, in consequence of certain frauds committed by one Ah- Fun, lately their Compradore ; and is brought against his securities. The security bond put in is admitted, and is singularly clear and distinct : the Defendants therein agree to be responsible to Preston, Brcuell & Co. for any defaults made by Ah Fun to them in his capacity of Compra- dore, and the Plaintiffs in this case hold that it guaran- tees Ah-Fun’s integrity in any transactions in which they might engage with him, while remaining in their ser- vice. . The Defendants, however, allege that not only does it not guarantee the solvency and good faith of Ah-Fun as an independent trader, but that the bond especially guards against this by the final note in which, foreseeing that the Compradore would be likely to enter into speculations, and that if unsuccessful he might, as had been done in previous cases, make use of his mas- ter’s...”
12

“...The chief Re-exports from Shanghai are : Grey Shirtings 159,914 pieces, of which 31,900 have gone to Hankow and 113,083 to Tientsin; of T-Cloths 37,966, of which 14,015 have gone to Hankow, and 14,569 to Tientsin. Of Raw Cot- ton 23,843 pels, have gone from Shanghai to Hankow CAUSES FOR HEARING. Jany. H. B. M.’s Supreme Court. 15, Wong-king-kee versus W. R. Adamson & Co. Claim for Tls. 35,749, due on account stated. 22, C. 13. Clark, versus J. S. Robison.—Claim for Tls. 75, due on Compradore’s order. ,, Hall and Holtz versus Hawes & Co.—Claim for Tls. 108, Goods sold and delivered. ,, Hume and others versus Shanghai Pilot Company, Petition for judicial relief. H. B. M.’s Supreme Court—in Bankruptcy. 15, In re Robert Mackenzie.—Bankrupt to pass his last examination and make application for his order of discharge. 17, In re Jarvie, Tliorbum & Co.—Meeting for Bank- rupts to pass their last examination and apply for their respective orders of discharge—also for de- claration of dividend. 30...”
13

“...SUPREME COURT & CONSULAR GAZETTE. PUBLIC AUCTION. In the Bankrupt Estate of JOSEPH P. DYMES, Esq. mHE Undersigned have received instructions, X from the Assignees in the above Bankrupt Estate, to offer for sale by Public Auction, on Wednesday, the VI th instant, at 2 P.M., within their Offices No. 7, Foochow Load, the following very valuable properties, situated in Chinkiang and its neighbourhood. First—The 99 Years lease of a lot of land within the Biitish Concession, registered at the Consulate as Lot No. 16, occupying a space of about 30,118 square feet. There is a yearly Ground Bent of Tls. 2.2.1 payable on the 31st May of each year. Second—A lot of land outside the Conces- sion, measuring 5 mow 2fan, bounded on the North by River, on the South by Causeway, on the East by land of Taow, and on the West by that of Yew. There is an annual Ground Rent of 1,500 cash. Third—A lot of land outside the Concession, measuring 17 mow, 6 fun, 4 li, 5 haou, bounded on the North by River, on the South...”
14

“...SUPREME COURT & CONSULAR GAZETTE. IN HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY’S SUPREME COURT FOR CHINA AND JAPA1 Name of Deceased. NOTICE Date of Death. OF DEATH. Residence. Date of Notice. Robert Muirhead Reddie 1865 12th August, Shanghai 1865 7th September, Janie Christie 9th September, Thos. Hunt & Co.’s S’hai i. 9th ,, John Mackinnon 3rd ,, General Hospital S’hai. 9th ,, Bigcf 9th Shanghai ? > 11th ,, Susan Martin 9th ,, 12th „ James Cuthhertson 21st 13th September, a 13th Nathan Tayler j ? 15th ,, John Tall entire 15th »i 15th ,, Thomas Edward Jenkins 17th ,, Schr. Waterlily Shanghai General Hospital S’hai 18th William Maxwell 18th 19th Charles Campbell 26th ,, Shanghai 26 th ,, John Eilleul 21st 99 22ml ,, H. Atwell 22nd 9 9 22nd „ Nichol Latimer 28 th 28th Alexander George Henry 16th 9 9 Alice Shanghai 29th 26tli October, Nixon 25tli October, W. Thompson, 25th ,, B. B. Seaton Shanghai 26th ,, Robert Sampson, 26th B. B. Elizabeth 26th H. H. Wiggins, 27th ,, Shanghai, 30th 13th November Walter...”