The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1894-07-20

ing amendments TO the petition to
make it correspond with the facts ana
the order.
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDD, CO.
BANKRUPTCY was adjudged in this
case by Circuit Judge Whiting, who
found "that L. q. Y. Alai, Alai Sr
and Lam Pun, comprising the copart-
uerShip firm of lai Wo Chan Com
many have become bankrupt" etc,
and that Leong Ming and Lum Kan,
petiiioned as codefendants herein
are not partners in said finn of Tai
Wo Chan Company, and as to the
said LeOng Ming and Lum Kan said
petition is dismissed, and, says the
Court: " / do further adjudge I. Q. y.
Alai, Alai ST., aud Lam Pun, COM
prising the firm OF Tai Wo Chan Com
pany, bankrupt accordingly"
An appeal was taken from this judg-
ment by T. Q. Y, Alai AID Alai to this
Court.
The original petition was against
"Tai Wo Chan Company, composed
of Tai Wo Chan aud Others, an un
registered Chinese mercantile firm
IS Nuuauu street, Honolulu" On the
return day the petitioners asked aud
obtained leave TO file an amended
petition, describing the debtors pro
ceeded against as "Tai Wo Chan Com
pany, an unregistered Chinese mer-
camille firm and cOpartnershfp, com
posed of 7. Q. Y. Alai alias Tai WO
Chan, Leong Ming, Lum Kan aud All
Lai, aud doing business as shoemak-rs
and tailors at No. 80 Nuuanu street in
Honolulu
By statute, on page $40 Compiled
Laws, the members of every cOpart-
nership are required to be registered
in the Interior office, in default of
VIII rh each member of such unegis-
tert 4 firm may be held liable for pa t.
neTsuip debts, and sued severally
theiefnr. From the evidence adduced
rte Circuit Judge found that L-ong
Ming aud Lum Kan were not part
ners, but that I. @ Y. Alai, Alal aud
Que am Pun constituted the partner
ship. We have carefully reviewed the
evidence taken, and see no reason for
varyit 9 the finding made by the
Bankruptcy Court. The finn not
being registered, the petitioners were
obi ed TO set out as partners those
whom they considered to be such on
such informant u as they had. The
alleged partners, the Alai- Senior aud
Junior, show, to our satisfaction, that
Leong Mug Tor Ling had sold out
from tue firm of Tai Wo Chan Com
pauy. Lum Kan does not seem to
have ever been Que of this firm.
These witnesses insist that only 7.
@. Y. Alai and Lam Pun, now in
China, compose the firm. The full
name Of the younger I. @ Y. Alai is
Tong Quoug zee Aiai anu Is comm n
Is known by the natives as Alai.
Without Teeiting the evidence in de
tail We fad that it Is satisfactorily
proved that Alai, senior, l. a member
OF the firm. 1t is very strong evidence
his takiug personally to the petition
creditors a list Of the firms assets
and Liabilities ION a demand by the
petitioning creditors for an exhibit OF
their affairs which contaiued an item
among the assets "stock OF Alai, tall
or, $1,000" Another LIST had been
previously taken to the petitioniug
creditors, containing the items, stock
of Alai, tailor, $1,000 The shop
occupied by this firm had a shoe
making business down stairs and
taIloT's shop Upstairs, aud
the goods of both depa tments were
exposed for sale downstairs, there be
ing only one sign on the shOp-"fsi
| WO Chan COMPANY"
We think TIE Bankruptcy Court
was fully justified in holding Is 1t
did There was no occasion 10 dis
mis- the petition on the evidence
showing a variance
The failure TO persOnally serve Lam
Pan, who il said 10 br in China, has
Oniy the effect to exempt his private
pros erty, If any n ha-, from liabiIi y
for the firms debts. II does not sbate
the proceedings against the firm a.
set-.
A. t. the indemnity boni by peti
tioning creditors bling bati because
given To the j btOr Il III aud DDt 10 the
ia i-viiuals eDmf O-Ing ~, We do IIoI
fiBd that ans Otj-, ton to the bond Vas
made Ia the Cou # first Instsnc--,
anu 20 do not cpn-fder IL here. such
. boud was hid gO'd in De Caussey
w. 'Sailey, 81 Tx. go.
Cauu-.l iDr the respondents made
objection III this Court that the petI-
I tIrn elbows that the p-iifioHing crefIi-
| rors we Il. ". Net he-Bey, J. N
McChe-ney aud T. w MeChe-ney,
- mposIHg the firm Of MeChrsn+y <
/ sous, ard tie evidence only -bOws
that T. w McChs-ney aud NJ. Me-
Ch--ney were psTtDrr=, there being
10 eviiieHc- that K w. MeCsI.s Bey Is
/ a member 81 the firm. This objection
/ 10 the variance b-Tween tie pleadiBgs
aud prp was not made in the Court
= a e.
in Thu Court, on appeal. The onier Of
rhe CouFf fellow srjudging the debtors
e. be bankrupt would imply that the
,,,rf,..-rsftfrt Of fire t.-fItfofItug credi-