Chan Chiu Hung v Hau Ping And Another

Court:District Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:DCCJ10298/1968
Judgment Date:25 Jan 1969
DCCJ010298/1968 CHAN CHIU HUNG v. HAU PING AND ANOTHER

DCCJ010298/1968

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HONG KONG

HOLDEN AT KOWLOON

CIVIL JURISDICTION

Action No. 10298 of 1968

-----------------

BETWEEN:
CHAN Chiu Hung Plaintiff

AND

HAU Ping 1st Defendant
CHAN Wai Choi 2nd Defendant

-----------------

Coram: Judge Cons.

Date of Judgment: 25 January 1969

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

1. This is an Action upon a dishonoured cheque dated 22nd October 1966, and drawn in the sum of $2,000 by one HAU Ping to whom I will, for convenience, refer as "the defendant", in favour of and endorsed by one CHAN Wai Choi, and of which the plaintiff is now the holder. CHAN Wai Choi is also joined as a defendant to this claim, but failed to lodge the defence ordered on the first hearing and has since taken no active part in the case, which is unfortunate, for his evidence might have been most helpful. As it was, only the plaintiff and the defendant gave evidence, which was in such direct conflict that I reserved judgment in the hope that a further consideration would enable me to find some fact or inference which would definitely establish which of them was telling the truth. This I have been unable to discover, but going through their respective stories in detail, I have come to the conclusion that that of the plaintiff is comfortably more credible. It is logical and consistent. The defendant was introduced to him by a friend as a man in need of $2,000 which he expected to be able to repay within twelve days; having no knowledge of the defendant he ensured by the manner of making the cheque and its endorsement that the defendant would also be responsible for the repayment. His reasons for not charging interest even though he is a professional money-lender are quite satisfactory; the extra weeks' grace, the excuse of the riots in 1967, fit into a normal pattern; it is understandable that he should not trouble to present the cheque for payment himself when the friend had already told him the defendant's account was not in funds to meet it; likewise that he should continuously press the friend for payment, for it was after all he who introduced the matter.

2. The defendant's story on the other hand is not really a story at all, but rather a series of unexplained incidents. He drew the cheque in favour of CHAN Wai Choi, but he does not say...

To continue reading

Request your trial