LIM YAM HONG Vs. LAM CHOON AND COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case was tried by Sir James Murison, Chief Justice, and the nature of the matter in dispute is sufficiently stated by him in these words :- The plaintiffs in this case sue the defendants for $ 10,164 for breach of contract to take delivery of fifteen tons of Singapore Standard Flat Bark Crepe at $ 1,03 1/4 per pound, The defendant denies that ho over made such a contract. The damages represent the difference in price when the rubber in question was sold in the open market after defendant's repudiation of the agreement. The only issue is whether defendant made the agreement or not. The plaintiff says that the agreement was made on his behalf by Cheng Kee, clerk of Messrs, Green & Collier, Brokers, with the defendant on August 4, 1925. The burden of proof lies upon the plaintiff, His witnesses are Cheng Kee, clerk to Messrs. Green & Collier, and Mr. Green.

(2.) The Chief Justice was not satisfied that the plaintiffs had proved the making of the alleged contract, and he therefore entered judgment for defendant. On appeal to the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements, this judgment was set aside and judgment entered for the plaintiffs for the amount claimed, Mr. Justice Reay dissenting from the opinion expressed by Mr. Justice Brown and Mr. Justice Deane, the other members of that Court.

(3.) The evidence given by Mr. Green for the plaintiffs, although 1 accepted entirely by the learned Chief Justice, was rightly declared by him to be of itself quite insufficient to prove the making of the contract, For that purpose, therefore, reliance was placed on the testimony of Cheng Kee, a clerk or broker I employed by the plaintiffs. This man the learned Chief Justice; qualified as "not a very bad witness," and added that if he could get definite corroboration of his story the denials of the defendant and his witnesses would not have availed to displace the evidence called on behalf of the plaintiffs. "But," said the I Chief Justice, "I find very great difficulty about the corroboration of Cheng Kee's evidence." He, therefore, held that the burden of proof was not discharged; and so he pronounced in favour of the defendant.