SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1918 Supreme(SC) 58

Hip Foong Hong – Appellant
Versus
H. Neotia and Company – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Malleson, Wadeson , Harwood and Co., Stephenson, A.C. Nesbitt, Hughes , A.M. Latter, D.M. Hogg

Lord Buckmaster:-

This is an appeal from an order of the full Court of His Britannic Majesty's Supreme Court for China siting at Shanghai, refusing the appellants' application for the new trial of an action heard by the Chief Judge, Sir Havilland de Sausmarez, on 7th July, 1916, and decided in favour of the respondents.

An appeal was originally instituted against the judgment itself, but this was abandoned in favour of the attempt to obtain a new trial. The appellants were well advised in the course they thus took. The difficulties that beset the hearing of the action were not of a nature that could be resolved better before their Lordships than they were before the learned Judge who tried the case. No question of law whatever was involved in the issue; the conclusion depended upon the determination of claims of contending witnesses and the balance of commercial probabilities, weighed with the knowledge of local habits and local manners.

The soundness of the judgment on the material originally before the learned Judge is therefore no longer in controversy; but, none-the-less, it is essential for the determination of this appeal that there should be some examination of the facts leadi

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top