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

“...for Thursday the 1 3th instant at 2 p.m., is unavoidably postponed till Tuesday the 23rd at 11 a.m. BY ORDER. IN H. B. M’s SUPREME COURT FOR CHINA AND JAPAN. The Bankruptcy Act, 1861. Shanghai, 13th April, 1867. WHEREAS a petition for adjudication of Bank- ruptcy was on the 8th day of April 1867, filed in Her Britannic Majesty’s Supreme Court for China and Japan at Shanghai, by Henry Charles Cam- midge, lately carrying on business as a Photographer at Shanghai aforesaid, under which he has been ad- judged bankrupt. Notice is hereby given Henry Charles Cammidge that he is hereby required to sur- render himself to Charles Wycliffe Goodwin, Esq., Assistant Judge of the Supreme Court aforesaid, at the jirst meeting of creditors to be held before the said Assistant Judge, on Thursday, the 25£A day of April instant, at 11 o’clock in the forenoon precisely, at the Supreme Court aforesaid, and also to the Court at the public sitting to be appointed by the Court for the said bankrupt to pass his...”
2

“...SUPREME COURT & CONSULAR GAZETTE. H. B. M ’s Supreme Court. IN HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY’S SUPREME COURT FOR CHINA AND JAPAN. In the Court of Bankruptcy. Shanghai, 6th April, 1867. In the matter of the Bankruptcy of W. Church. OTICE is hereby given that a meeting of the cred- itors of William Church, who was adjudged bankrupt on the 16£A day of September 1865, will be held before Sir Edmund Hornby, Knt., Chief Judge of Her Britannic Majesty’s Supreme Court for China and Japan on the 23rd day of April instant at 11 o’clock in the forenoon at the Supreme Court aforesaid when the official and sole assignee will submit a state- ment of the whole estate of the bankrupt as then ascertained, of the property outstanding, specifyin- the cause of its being so outstanding, and of all the reg ceipts and of all the payments thereon made, and any creditor who has proved may attend and examine such * statement and compare the receipts with the payments. And the meeting will declare by resolution whether and...”
3

“...April Mttli 1867. SUPREME COURT & CONSULAR GAZETTE. 189 ; It is requested that only such communications as relate t0 Editorial matters be addressed to the Editor, and that they be sent not later than Friday. Advertisements will be received till 10 a.m. on Saturday. , No communications can be noticed unless accompanied by the name of the writer. Supreme ®unrt uub (JunmtW feetie Shanghai, Apkil 13th, 1867. It has long been an open question among men capable of forming a judgment upon the subject whether the foreign merchant has been very greatly benefited by the extension of trade to new Treaty ports. When those On the River and in the North were throw'll open to foreigners after the conclusion of the Treaty of Tientsin, the hopes of commercial men connected with China were raised to the highest pitch ; and an indefinite increase of the profitable business which had previously been conducted was looked upon as the certain result of this change. For a time these expectations bade fair to be...”
4

“...190 SUPREME COURT & CONSULAR GAZETTE. April 20th 1867. ing known to be ready to purchase inland. Un- fortunately this attempt has proved in great measure ineffectual, as the agents sent up soon become known ; the results as to prices are practically the same ; while a loophole is left, as we have had startling proof of late, for the commission of frauds by those natives who are thus entrusted with vast interests and large sums of money. The system of buying in the interior, as at present conducted, is, we. believe, at the bottom of much of the unsoundness which has worked its way into the China trade; and it is the extension of this mode of transacting busi- ness, not, as has been erroneously supposed, the opening of new Treaty ports, that has caused much of the disaster which has fallen upon the merchants connected with the trade of this country. This is by degrees becoming recog- nized; and it may be hoped that ’ere long foreign merchants in China will become alive to the fact that they...”
5

“...officers of Our Court be instruct- ed to deliberate upon this matter need not be taken into consideration.” “ Respect this!” II. B. M. SUPREME COURT. April 15th 1867. Before Sir Edmund Hornby. hi appeal. Rowbotiiam v. A. Wilkinson & Co. Mr. Lawrance for the Defendants, Mr. Robinson for the Plaintiff. At the application of Defendants, a rule for appeal to the Privy Council wasgranted, under the 1.39th section of the Order in Council; the damages Tls. 8,000 and the costs $641, with $2,509 as required under sec. 135 to be paid into Ceurt. The Chief Judge taking into con- sideration Mr. Rowbotham’s circumstances, mentioned that if Tls. 3,000, with taxed costs $641, were paid to him (Mr. Rowbotham) he would consent to take such security as Mr. Rowbotham might be satisfied with for the balance of the damages to be awarded and the costs of the appeal. H. B. M.’s SUPREME COURT. April 16Z/f, 1867. Before Sir E. Hornby. In appeal. Bavier & Co. v. Hooper & Clark. This case came up in appeal from the Provincial...”
6

“...SUPREME COURT & CONSULAR GAZETTE. April 2QUi, 1867 ants represented that their godowns were insured, but as to the exact nature of this representation I am by no means clear. I think,; however, the course pur- sued by the plaintiff with reference to'sending bthe silk and the taking of it away again rebuts the presumption that while it was in the defendants’ possession the plain- tiff considered it was covered by any insurance. But even if this were not so I should be inclined to hold that it was only so covered against any casualty by fire happening during the time it was being pressed and packed, and that if allowed to remain after the process itself had stopped it was not so covered. The facts show distinctly that the plaintiffs were in the habit of sending every day just sufficient siik to fill the press and that when it got empty they were so advised and sent more, and when pressed, except in one or two occasions, they took it away to their own godowns, where they had a special insurance...”
7

“...April 20/7,, 1867. SUPREME COURT & 4uty in not communicating with, and obtaining in- structions from the owners of the ship, and the owner X)f the cargo. The two main objections to the bond advanced by the agents of the ship here are, first that neither the bondholder or master, before incurring the expenses, communicated with the owners of the ship or their known agents for instructions, and secondly that the value of the ship did not justify the incurring such an .expense. The objections of the owners of the cargo are that the intention to hypothecate was not communicated to them or their agents, and that these latter were given to understand that they had nothing to do with the repairs. Apart from the the inconvenience which arises from the Court having no evidence of Mr. Tilby’s being the general agent of the owners except his statement that he /s the agent of the ship at Shanghai, I am not prepared to say that the evidence satisfied me either that the captain or the bondholder have...”
8

“...194 SUPREME COURT & CONSULAR GAZETTE. April 2QI/l 1867. master of a vessel to communicate with the owners of the cargo when possible before hypothecating it for the repairs of the.vessel, and also his intention to hypo- thecate if no other means of raising money are affor- ded him, and on the lender to satisfy himself that such communication has been made, proceeds on an entirely different basis, and is founded on a clear and well defined principle. In the case of the cargo, the master is not agent of its owners, while he is the agent of the owners of the ship. His agency with respect to the cargo can only arise when there is an absolute ne- cessity for it and not otherwise, and therefore when there is a possibility of communicating with the owners, the circumstance of his distress, and what he proposes to do in regard to their goods, he is bound to do so, and the lender of the money is also bound to see that he does so ; for it is their goods that are being afforded him as a security;...”
9

“...take priority over the bond. It will then be for the Registrar and merchants to take into consideration the expenditure, to see if it is fair and reasonable, and if it was generally neces- sary to enable the ship to continue her voyage. Also to determine the amount of maritime interest ; to inquire into the particulars of the Captain’s claim and also into that of Messrs. Tilby—and to report to the Court on these matters with liberty to either party to move the Court on such report. H. B. M. SUPREME COURT. April, lbth 1867. Before Sir Edmund Hornby, Chief Judge. Reynolds versus Medhurst.—Claim for Tls. 6,240. Mr. Mvburgh for the Plaintiff. Messrs. Rennie and Lawrance for the Defendant. Mr. Mitchell appeared to watch the case on behalf of Dr. Legge. This was a claim for the recovery of proceeds of certain goods which had been the subject of proceed- ings in H. B. M. Consular Court, and which it was alleged had been wrongly adjudicated by the defend- ant, Mr. W. H. Medhurst, H. B. M. Consul...”
10

“...196 SUPREME COURT & CONSULAR GAZETTE. April «, I8GL transactions of The partnership of Sewell and Jarvis, from the month of March 1866 to the present day ; and .that a receiver be appointed to wind up the partner- ship. The partnership had commenced on the 1st »Sept. 1864; and in March 1866, Plaintiff alleged that he had previous to leaving for Canada, handed Defendant •a list of amounts due to the firm, aggregating $ 3,383, which he averred the Defendant agreed to collect for z the Partnership. In Nov. 1866, Plaintiff returned to Shanghai and found Defendant carrying on the business; But Defendant refused payment to him of any share rof the partnership amounts. The Plaintiff accor- dingly handed the Books &c. to Messrs. Cope, /Cheshire & Co. ; there being a difficulty experienced by them in getting the vouchers &e. from Defendant. The Defendant admitted the existence of the partner- ship but pleaded that it had been dissolved by mutual •consent when Plaintiff* left for Canada in March...”
11

“...April 20th X867. SUPREME .COURT & CONSULAR GAZETTE. 497 money, but I am disposed to credit the evidence that 'it was handed over, and as there may have been liabili- ties to meet, there is no reason to believe that Tls. 500 might not be a fair settlement. I therefore dismiss the Bill, but looking to all circumstances, shall do so without costs. H. B. M. SUPREME COURT. April V7th, 1867. Before C. W. Gqodwin Esq. T. If anbury, v. J. Primrose, & Lo Yuen Yeu. Mr. Myburgh for the Plaintiff. The Defendants in Person. This was a claim for Tls. $50, rent due by Defendants To Mr. Thos. H anbury, for whom Mr. E. Iveson pro- duced power of attorney, together with the agreement with Defendants, and shewing that the amount was due. Judgment was given fSUPREME COURT, IN BANKRUPTCY Y. AprzZ 1SZA, 1867- Before C. W. Goodwin, Esq. /?z re S. Clifton. ' Air. RoBTNSON’appeared for Air. Phelin, Messrs Ilall and Holtz and others. This was...”
12

“...198 SUPREME COURT & CONSULAR GAZETTE. April Mth 1867 Shanghai, 112/& April, 1867. Sir Edmund Hornby, Commandant S. V. C. Dear Sir,—The undersigned members of the Shanghai Volunteer Corps being anxious that the Rifle Company should be armed with more efficient weapons than it now possesses, and believing in the feasibility of accomplishing so desirable an object, beg to request, in accordance with Rule 36 of the standing orders, that you will he so good as to call a Meeting of the Corps as soon as possible, to con- sider a proposition that will be brought forward (some parti- culars of which are hereunto annexed) for obtaining a Stand of Fifty “Snider” Breech-loaders without making any pecuniary demand upon the individual members. We have the honor to be, Dear Sir, your most humble and obedient Servants. (Here follow 32 names.) Ways and means to obtain a Stand of Fifty “ Snider” Breech-loaders for the Shanghai Volunteer Corps. 50 Machine-made Interchangeable Long Enfield Riflles, as furnished...”
13

“...fire, and some steps will probably be taken to remedy this for the future. We understand it is proposed to purchase a steam worked Fire Engine to throw the water to the spot where the fire occurs. The appeal case ofBavier & Co. v. Hooper and Clarke was heard at the Supreme Court on Saturday last in the Chief Judge’s Chambers ; Mr. My burgh appearing for the appellants and Mr. Rennie for the opposers. The question, which turned upon whether an insurance against fire upon certain cocoons sent to Hooper and Clarke’s godowns had been entered into or not, was argued by the Counsel at some length. Judgment con- firmatory of that of the Court at Yokohama has been given. An important decision has been given by the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court in the matter of the Seaton in Admiralty ; in which Sir Edmund Hornby announces that in future, when the owners of cargo are Chinese, he will hold it essential, when the circum- stances permit, that the owners be communicated with, and “be distinctly told...”
14

“...SUPREME COURT & CONSULAR GAZETTE. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION. IN respect of the annexed communication from the Vice Chairman of the Committee of Land Renters the Meeting of Land Renters heretofore advertised t, be held at the British Consulate, on the 25th instanto will be held there at 2 p.m. on Monday, the 29th inst. CHARLES A. WINCHESTER, Id. B. M. ’,s* UozmcZ. WILLIE P. MANGUM, U. S. Vice-Consul General. Shanghai, 18th April, 1867. General, No. 386. Council Room, Shanghai, 18th April, 1867. Gentlemen, In consequence of the delay which has occurred in the printing of the Annual Report, Budget, &c., I am compelled to request that you be so good as to call a Meeting of Land Renters for the 29th instant, uin lieu of the 25th instant, as applied for in my letter of 10th instant, General, 364. 1 have the honor to be, Gentlemen, Your obedient servant, J. C. COUTTS, Vice-Chairman. C. A. Winchester, Esq., H. B. M 's Consul. W. P. Mangum, Esq., U. S. Vice-Consul General. In re “ SEATON ” PUBLIC AUCTION...”