Wong Cheung T/a Tai Cheung Poultry Stall v Huey Siu Yuet Yim And Others

CourtDistrict Court (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date01 Aug 1968
Judgement NumberDCCJ1856/1968
SubjectCivil Action
DCCJ001856/1968 WONG CHEUNG t/a TAI CHEUNG POULTRY STALL v. HUEY SIU YUET YIM AND OTHERS

DCCJ001856/1968

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HONG KONG

HOLDEN AT VICTORIA

CIVIL JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. 1852 OF 1968.

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

BETWEEN
Cheung So trading as So Kee Vegetable Stall Plaintiff
AND
Huey Siu Yuet Yim 1st Defendant
Tsang Wai Wan 2nd Defendant
Ho Wong Wai Lai alias Wong Wai Lai 3rd Defendant
(formerly partner of Imperial Restaurant)

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

ACTION NO. 1853 OF 1968.

BETWEEN
Yick Cheong Hong (a firm) Plaintiffs
AND
Huey Siu Yuet Yim 1st Defendant
Tsang Wai Wan 2nd Defendant
Ho Wong Wai Lai alias Wong Wai Lai 3rd Defendant
(formerly partner of Imperial Restaurant)

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

ACTION NO. 1854 OF 1968.

BETWEEN
Man Ten Meat Company (a firm) Plaintiffs
AND
Huey Siu Yuet Yim 1st Defendant
Tsang Wai Wan 2nd Defendant
Ho Wong Wai Lai alias Wong Wai Lai 3rd Defendant
(formerly partner of Imperial Restaurant)

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

ACTION NO. 1855 OF 1968.

BETWEEN
Yau Shun China Ware Store (a firm) Plaintiffs
AND
Huey Siu Yuet Yim 1st Defendant
Tsang Wai Wan 2nd Defendant
Ho Wong Wai Lai alias Wong Wai Lai 3rd Defendant
(formerly partner of Imperial Restaurant)

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

ACTION NO. 1856 OF 1968.

BETWEEN
Wong Cheung trading as Tai Cheung Poultry Stall Plaintiff
AND
HUEY SIU YUET YIM 1st Defendant
TSANG WAI WAN 2nd Defendant
HO WONG WAI LAI alias WONG WAI LAI 3rd Defendant
(formerly partner of Imperial Restaurant)

Coram: J.T. Williams, D.J. in Court.

Date of Judgment: 1 August 1968

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The plaintiffs claim for food supplied to the defendants as partners in the Imperial Restaurant between February and June 1967. The restaurant only existed from 8th February 1967 to 2nd June 1967.

2. Only 1st and 2nd defendants were served and they deny ordering goods for the Imperial Restaurant and that they were partners in it.

3. It would seem that the food sued for was in fact delivered to the restaurant and that the plaintiffs have not been paid for it but there is no evidence that it was supplied at the request of 1st and 2nd defendants. There is no evidence that 1st and 2nd defendants had ever concerned themselves in the affairs of the Imperial Restaurant or held themselves out as partners in it.

4. The only evidence against 1st and 2nd defendants is an application form Ex. P.3, for registration of the Imperial Restaurant under the Business Registration Ordinance Cap. 310, which was filed in the Business Registry on 12th April 1967 by one KWAN Chan Fong and naming 1st and 2nd defendants among the partners.

5. 1st and 2nd defendants say that they had given $10,000 and $3,000 respectively to KWAN Chan Fong for shares in a restaurant to be run as the Imperial Restaurant Ltd. Their receipts, Exs.D7 and D8, dated December 1967, show the money was received for shares in a limited company. The evidence shows that the Imperial Restaurant never came into ...(illegible) a limited company at any time material to this action.

6. In cross-examination 1st and 2nd defendants agreed that they did not appreciate the difference between a partnership and a limited company, and that when they parted with their money they had simply been concerned with an investment. Miss Lee, counsel for the plaintiffs, argued that since the 1st and 2nd defendants did not...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT