Dearie:Russell Family History

The Straits Times 10 January 1923 page 8 At Kuala Lumpur, the civil suit…has been put back.. Ng Hong Guan v. J.A. Russell for February.

THE MALAY MAIL, THURSDAY JANUARY 11TH, 1923. SUPREME COURT F.C. PECK vs. J.A. RUSSELL AND OTHERS The Hearing Continued The adjourned hearing of the above civil suit came up for hearing on Wednesday morning in the Supreme Court before his Honour Mr. Justice Farrer-Manby. Mr. Hastings was counsel for the plaintiff and defendants were represented by Sir Arthur Adams, Messrs. E.D. Shearn, A.S. Bailey and W.V.D. Skrine. Messrs. F.C. Peck and J.A. Russell were present in Court during the hearing of the suit. Mr. Hastings, who was addressing the Court when it adjourned on December 22nd, continued his argument yesterday morning, and began by referring to the case of Mozley vs. Alston cited by Sir Arthur Adams, which he said was a case on the same lines as Foss vs. Harbottle, and was a suit brought by a shareholder in a railway company on behalf of himself and others, alleging that certain directors should have retired and did not retire and as a consequence they sought relief. His Lordship: What do you want to point out in this case which is in your favour? Mr Hastings: The general reasoning of the whole case is in my favour. They did not sue on behalf of other shareholders but in their own representative capacity. Counsel here read a passage from the case in support, and said that the point of decision in the case was that there was nothing to prevent them suing in the name of the Company. Counsel commented on the Judge’s decision in the case, and His Lordship asked if relief in that case was claimed against the majority. Mr. Hastings said that it was so. Considerable discussion followed on the points of this case, after which counsel referred to the case of Duckett vs. Gover in 6 Chancery Division, which raised the point of asking leave to sue. Defendant in that case demurred and counsel read out the reasons why it was demurred. Referring to the case of Mason vs. Harris, counsel said that Harris demurred on certain grounds and he cited from the report. He also referred to the judgement in that case. Counsel next cited the case of Lord vs. Copper Miners which he said was purely and solely a matter of the internal management of the Company. Having read the judgements in this case, a discussion followed. Counsel next referred to the case of Atwool vs. Mereweather, where action was taken against two out of the six directors. The judgement of Lord Justice James in the case of Gray vs. Lewis was next quoted, and counsel addressed his Lordship on the important points in the judgement. Passages from the case of MacDougal vs. Gardener were cited next, and in the course of the discussion which followed, His Lordship said that he might be missing something in counsel’s argument. He did not know why counsel was so persistent on the point about getting the company to sue, as counsel had always alleged in the plaint that the company would not sue. He said that counsel had not instanced a case where a single director was sued and where there was no allegation against the other directors. Mr. Hastings next cited the case of Menier vs. Hoopers Telegraph Works and said: “That was a case where the majority, actually the whole majority were fraudulent. There is no doubt about that. It was not alleged that they refused to institute a suit or that there was nothing to prevent them doing so. All these cases are decided on the facts, because there is no allegation in the bill that the Company had refused to institute a suit, or that there was nothing to prevent them doing so. All these cases are decided on the fact that there is no allegation in the bill. Counsel then read from Lord Jessel’s judgement, and referred to another instance, which occurred in the case of Atwool vs. Mereweather, in which the Corporation was controlled by the evil doer, and would not allow its name to be used as plaintiff in the suit. It was said that justice required that the majority of the members of the Corporation should not appropriate to themselves the property of the minority, and then use their own votes at the General Meeting of the Corporation to prevent a suit being brought against them, consequently in a case of that kind the members of the Corporation who formed part of the minority might file a bill on their own behalf to get back the property or money which was illegal property. In almost all cases the same doctrine applies and the individual shareholder may maintain his suit. As I have said before, continued counsel, the rule is a general one, but it does not apply to a case where the interest of justice require the rule to be disposed with. His Lordship: You have to show that the majority have illegally obtained the property and money and that they have refused to sue? Mr. Hastings: No, my Lord, because that is not Atwool vs. Mereweather where it was two out of six which turned the scale. Counsel referred to paragraphs 26 and 27 in the plaint, which he said was a direct allegation that the company would not sue. In Atwool vs. Mereweather the majority voted for referring the matter to arbitrators. Sir A. Adams pointed out that the allegation there was that the directors refused to sue. A discussion then followed in regard to the necessity of showing that Mr. Russell controlled the Company, in the course of which Mr. Hastings said: “If you had alleged certain things against a certain director, and there had been a meeting of shareholders, and at that meeting although he held only one vote and by his one vote the company had been prevented from suing, one shareholder would be entitled to sue. His Lordship: That might be so. Mr Hastings: We allege that Mr. Russell hold about 45 per cent of the votes. If he either has a majority or he has something less than 45 per cent we can sue. My plaint was filed in the middle of September and on the day when it was filed the actual position of affairs was this: There had been a meeting of this Company where Mr. Russell’s votes had actually turned the scale, it was very nearly the same resolution as was moved and carried in Atwool vs. Mereweather. In Atwool vs. Mereweather the case was to be referred to arbitration, in this case to three referees. His Lordship: Supposing he did turn the scale at that meeting, it was rather an important thing, but it does not mean a refusal to go to law. Mr Hastings: Supposing the directors had been out-voted as they would have been but for Mr. Russell’s votes? A discussion followed on those two suppositions, at the conclusion of which Sir A. Adams said that the referees were appointed to decide whether Mr. Peck was to be assisted by the Company in the litigation. Mr Hastings: There was no understanding that Mr. Russell would submit to the findings of the referees. (To be continued)

Malayan Collieries. [Articles] 0. The Straits Times, 11 January 1923, Page 9 0. Malayan Collieries. 0. Is Mr. Peck Entitled to Sue A Director? 0. From Our Own Correspondent. Kuala Lumpur, January 10. 0. The case in which Mr. F. C. Peck, on behalf of himself and other shareholders, sues Mr. J. A. Russell, Mr. J. A. Russell and Company and the Malayan Collieries, Ltd., for secret profits over the purchase of Malayan Collieries’ Borneo property, was taken up in the Supreme Court again this morning when the two issues as to whether Mr. Peck, as a shareholder of the company, is entitled to sue, were further argued. 0. The whole of to-day, Mr. Hastings, counsel for Mr. Peck argued replying to Sir. Arthur Adams, citing numerous authorities to show that his client, as a shareholder, was entitled to sue in view of the fact that the directors refused to take action. The first case taken by Mr. Hastings was taken from 41 English Reports, Mosley v. Alston. Mr. Hastings said that the general reasoning of this case was in his favour. They sued, not on behalf of themselves and others, but in their own representative capacity. He said there was no case where it has been alleged that the company will not sue where leave to sue had been refused- no case of that kind. The question then arose as to whether it was possible to sue one director only. 0. His Lordship: I don’t know of a single case where one director has been sued. 0. Mr. Hastings: In Duckett v. Grover, my Lord, it was not even a director at all; it was a solicitor and vendor; and again he was not allowed to sue because there was no allegation in the plaint that he could not get the Company to sue. Duckett v. Grover, and Mason v. Harris are two of my best authorities. If a company will not allow its own name to be used in these proceedings, then any shareholder is entitled to bring a suit on behalf of himself and other shareholders. 0. His Lordship here quoted a passage from Lindley. 0. Mr. Hastings, in reply, said that if the act complained of was an act which is alleged for the majority then the minority could not sue. 0. His Lordship: Illegal or ultra vires? 0. Mr. Hastings: Such as could not be ratified by the majority. 0. His Lordship: Once you show that this fraud could not be ratified it seems to be you win on that point. 0. Mr. Hastings: I think I win in other ways as well. 0. Mr. Hastings: The next case I wish to take is Lord v, Copper Mines, my Lord. I wish to point out that this is purely and wholly a matter of internal management of the company. He next drew attention to the part of the judgment which said: I find all the company made by the individual shareholders to consist of acts within the powers of the corporation and all sanctioned by general meetings of the shareholders, and no allegation raising any case for the interference of a court of equity with the exercise of such rights. 0. Mr. Hastings drew attention to the fact that there was no charge of fraud in that case. 0. His Lordship: There is something in Brice, which is more in your favour than anything else. 0. Continuing, Mr. Hastings said that in Atwell v. Merryweather only two out of the six directors were sued, and there it was by aid of their votes that there was a majority against suing. Referring to Gray v. Lewis, Mr. Hastings said that in that case as a company, capable of suing, was in existence and that there was no allegation that they could not sue or would not sue. He then quoted a judgment from Lord Justice James as follows: I think it is of the utmost importance to maintain the rule laid down in Mosley v. Alston and Fox v. Harbuckle to which, as I understand, the only exception is where the co-operative body has got into the hands of directors and of the majority, which directors and majority are using their power for doing something fraudulent against the minority, who are overwhelmed by them as in Atwell and Merryweather. 0. His Lordship asked whether they allege anything fraudulent against the directors. 0. Mr. Hastings: I do not allege anything fraudulent against these directors with regard to the main transaction of the case. 0. His Lordship: It is open to you to allege that that they were fraudulent with regard to getting this referred to these three gentleman (referees). I take it that on these authorities it would then be open for you to sue. 0. Mr. Hastings: If I allege that in so many words I am, in fact, alleging that these directors are doing that because they were themselves concerned in the original fraud. He then suggested as a possibility that the directors might think it advisable to retain Mr. Russell’s services because if they sued him they would be bound to see that he ceased to act as their agent and secretary. 0. Mr. Hastings next referred to McDougall v. Gardner (all these cases having previously been taken By Sir Arthur Adams). He said that this was a case purely and entirely on the internal arrangements and procedure. He quoted a part of the judgment of Lord Justice James, which says, I think that it is of the utmost importance that the rule which is well-known in this court as the rule in Mosley v. Alston, Lord v. Copper Mines Company and Fox v. Harbuckle should always be adhered to. This is to say, that nothing connected with internal dispute between the shareholders is to be named the subject of a bill by some one shareholder on behalf of himself and other shareholders unless there be something illegal, oppressive or fraudulent, unless there is something ultra vires on the part of the company, qua company, or on the part of the majority of the company, so that they are no fit persons to determine it; but that every litigation must be in the name of the company if the company really desire it. 0. The court rose at 5.30 p.m. and will convene to-morrow at 9.30 a.m. 0. 0. (1026 words)

TIN-MINING [Articles] 0. The Straits Times, 12 January 1923, Page 2 0. TIN-MINING. Prize Model Exhibited At Rangoon. 0. A correspondent who visited the room in St. Paul’s Fancy Fair, Rangoon, and who was interested in the ingenious method of tin-mining employed by Chinese 30 years ago and before the advent of steam power in a mine in Ipoh town, Perak (Malay Peninsula), writes to the Rangoon Gazette that the method of the tin mine was well worth looking at. 0. The designing of the model was correct in all essential details and is owned by Towkay Ng Hoy. This gentleman was awarded silver cups and a gold medal in April this year, during the Malaya- Borneo Exhibition (mineral section), 1922, by Messrs. J. A. Russell and Co.; the Straits Trading Co., and the medal by Mr. Tan Hock Kheng, a wealthy merchant of Singapore. The model was worked by a small engine which was placed under the stand on which the model stood. One saw the crude ore being lifted by aerial baskets from a shafted hill bearing rich sand loaded with crude tin. These baskets conveyed the sand to the (palaung) working sluices where men worked it. It was then taken away in wheel barrows to the kongsi (huts where the coolies lived) where it was smelted and made into ingots weighing about 100lbs. An open cast mine and how it was worked was seen. The modelled Chinamen dug up the (karang) rich sand (with the “ mamooti” and others carried it up a narrow gang plank to the men in charge of the washing sluices. The model showing the working of an endless chain of buckets on a water-wheel to drain the mine underground was well executed. The coolie took his food, his smoke and his siesta at midday in a roughly constructed hut walled with laths of common timber and roofed with attap – a grass growing on the mine land. The methods employed though primitive were satisfactory, the 50 miners winning about 500lbs of tin per day. The tin market at the time was more satisfactory than at present. (362 words)

Letter. From Acting Collector of Tax Revenue to Secretary to Resident. No. (5.) In L. 870/1922 Land Office, Kuala Lumpur 12th January, 1923 Renewal of mining Lease No. 2672 portion 2180 B. Mukim. Sir, I have the honour to submit an application dated 6.11.1922 by Mr. J. A. Russell for renewal of mining lease 2672 portion 2180 mukim of Batu which is due to expire on 2.11.1923. Attached tracing and record of work show the position and history of the land. Applicant owns mining lease 2616 portion 2637 adjoining. The Warden of Mines recommends renewal for 10 years. Notice has been served on the sublessee who has not yet replied. I recommend renewal for 10 years at a premium of $10/- per acre. I have the honour to be, sir, Your obedient servant, W.R. Boyd Ag. Collector of Land Revenue, Kuala Lumpur. Title and No. 2672 B:77 Portion: 2180 Date of Title: 2.11.14 Area: 20.0.00 Lessee: J. A. Russell Record of Work:

Record of Work:

Dates:	Notes:
15.11.13	7 coolies O.M.
26.11.14	No coolies
12.3.15	18 coolies O.M.
10.11.15	See M.L. 2616
3.1.17	No coolies
12.12.18	10 coolies O.C.
7.11.19
to
22.6.22	No coolies
16.11.22	54 coolies O.C.
	(signed 28. XI. 22)

Document in the National Archives of Malaysia SEL: SEC 286/1923 Mining Lease No. 2672 Batu Mukim: Renewal of Mr. J. A Russell.

The Straits Times, 13 January 1923, Page 9 0. Malayan Collieries. Argument of Preliminary Point Concluded. 0. (From Our Own Correspondent.) Kuala Lumpur, January l2. 0. The argument of the preliminary point as to whether Mr. F. C. Peck, as a shareholder of the Malayan Collieries, is entitled to sue Mr. J. A. Russell and J. A. Russell and Co., was concluded yesterday, before his Lordship Mr. Justice Farrer –Manby. 0. Mr. Hastings, continuing to address the court, said that in this action they sued in the name of the company. In a case in point (Silver Light Co.) there was no suggestion that the majority of the shareholders shared in the fraud or that Mr. Silver got any benefit out of the minority. It was simply that the majority of the shareholders were content with the arrangement, which the liquidator had made, and did not want to sue, and on those grounds it was held that Dr. Elam and his minority were not entitled to maintain the action in the name of the company, but leave was granted that they were entitled to sue on behalf of himself and the other shareholders. “ That case is clear authority for what I am maintaining. There is no question of the majority being fraudulent in this case. It was simply this, that the majority would not sue. The directors were alleged to be fraudulent, including Mr. Silver, but the majority of the shareholders did not wish to sue; therefore the plaintiffs were not entitled to sue in the name of the company because the majority of the company did not wish to be parties in the litigation. For that reason they were given leave to go and sue the directors in the name of Dr. Elam, on behalf of him and the shareholders. I submit my Lord, that that case is the strongest authority in my favour” 0. His Lordship: It has never been disputed that you can sue this company for fraud, but in this, I take it, that it was all the directors who were sued in the case. 0. The 80,000 Shares 0. Continuing, Mr. Hastings said there never was in fact a sale by Mr. Russell to the company at all. All that happened was that Mr. Russell received 80,000 shares in Malayan Collieries Ltd., for handing over to the company certain property which was already the property of the company. “ In effect, what the company has done is to dispose of or do away with 80,000 shares of the company. I say that is clearly ultra vires and it could not be intra vires. It can be put in a different way that the company has created 80,000 shares to give a person for property which was already their own for no consideration whatsoever.” 0. His Lordship: Can you not make a present if the majority say so? 0. Mr. Hastings: “No my Lord; they can give a bonus for work done” 0. He then referred to the Imperial Institute case where the Railway Company subscribed £1,000 to the Institute because it was going to bring a lot of profit to the Railway Company. A Mr. Tomkinson objected and brought a suit and it was held ultra vires. 0. His Lordship said the wording of the case was rather strong, and drew attention to particular passages in it to bear out his remarks. It seemed to him that such a case was even worse than that alleged against Mr. Russell. His Lordship further said “some money has been taken from everybody’s pockets; can the majority do that?” 0. Mr. Hastings: The practical effect of that is to dispose of the assets of the company which is what they cannot do. You cannot give away the assets of the company by gift. In this case the asset done away with is the asset as it left the hands of the Eastern Rubber and Mining Company. If the case I have cited is ultra vires how much more must an agreement be ultra vires which hands over 80,000 shares or, if you like, hands over a coal mine to Mr. Russell and then takes it from him and pays him for it. 0. The Right to Take Action 0. Having referred to a few other cases Mr. Hastings, concluding said, “ What the directors say is that the allegation made against J. A. Russell and J. A. Russell and Company is unfounded and, therefore, they could not sue because they had no cause for action.” He submitted however, if the facts were true that this was the property of the company from the beginning, that is, as soon as it came into the hands of J. A. Russell and Co., it was perfectly clear that he was entitled to sue. If it was a case where Mr. Russell had bought this property or it had been in his possession before he became a director of the company it would be an entirely different matter. But Mr. Russell had bought it as an agent of the company and the moment he bought it, it became the property of the company and he had no right to sell it at a profit. He submitted, in conclusion, that he was entitled to sue because the case was one in which there was fraud alleged on the part of a director and where the company refused to take action. He submitted that the Silver Light Company was a clear authority of this proposition. There was no necessity to be the majority or the governing body. He next submitted that assuming that the proposition be not correct and not borne out by the authorities that any shareholder was entitled to sue provided he alleged that the company was under the control of a director. He did allege that in para 26 of his plaint, and if he did not allege sufficiently that the company was under the control of Mr. Russell, he asked for leave to do so and amend his plaint accordingly as that was one of the most important points of the whole matter. If that was allowed, it was quite clear that he had a right to take action. Continuing, he said that if the majority obtained by Mr. Russell was an independent majority he did not mind, but his Lordship had to find out whether this majority was a bona fide majority. 0. Sir Arthur Adams replied briefly. He said that although his learned friend dwelt at such great length on the doctrine of ultra vires, that doctrine was entirely an after- thought in this case. Referring to the option, Sir Arthur said that there was absolutely no justification for his learned friend saying that that document was obtained secretly by Mr. Russell. Referring to the plaint, counsel said that he was glad to hear that his learned friend was not responsible for the drawing up of it, for there had been an ingenious attempt in it to place the attached documents in the wrong places. 0. His Lordship reserved judgment. (1171 words)

THE MALAY MAIL, TUESDAY JANUARY 16TH, 1923. SUPREME COURT F.C. PECK vs. J.A. RUSSELL AND OTHERS Concluding Stages The following is a brief summary of the concluding day’s hearing of the above civil suit. Mr. Hastings cited the Cape Breton case which concerned the matter of a director selling a property to a Company before he became a director, and said; The interpretation which Sir. A. Adams tried to extract from this case was, assuming Mr. Russell sold to the Company, it being I presume Mr. Russell’s own property at that time, then the only remedy the company could have against him would be to resuit the contract and give Mr. Russell back the property and take back from Mr. Russell the purchase price which they have paid to him. My proposition is that what this case does establish is that when a man has property of his own which he has acquired before he became a director, before there was any fiduciary relationship between himself and the company, then under these circumstances the only thing which can be done, when the company discovers there has not been disclosure, is recission. But in my case Mr. Russell was Chairman of the Board of Directors and Managing Agents and Secretaries of the Malayan Collieries Ltd., at all material times. Counsel dealt with several other cases and in regard to North West Transportation Coy. vs, Beatty. He said that the difference between that case and this was where a voidable contract fair in its terms had been entered into by its directors with one of their principals as sole vendor, it was held that such vendor was entitled to exercise his voting power as a shareholder in general meetings to ratify such a contract. His doing so could not be deemed oppressive by reason of his individually possessing votes. Having read the case of Newman vs. George counsel said that directors cannot pay themselves for their services unless authorised to do so by the instrument which regulates the company. Counsel submitted that he was entitled to sue and that one of a minority is entitled to sue. He next put forward the proposition that he was entitled to sue for fraud by a director provided the Company refused to sue. It was not necessary for the person who had inflicted the ill on the company to be sued to be a director. Secondly, assuming that it was not correct and was not borne out by the authorities, then a shareholder, one of the minority, was entitled to sue, provided the company would not sue, and was in fact under the control of the defaulting shareholders. Counsel submitted that he had alleged it in paragraph 26 of the plaint and if he had not alleged sufficiently in his plaint that the company would not sue then he asked leave to amend his plaint so that it would be sufficiently alleged, because that was one of the most important points in the matter. Counsel next dealt with the bona fides of the majorities at the meetings where the resolutions were passed. At the first meeting the resolution was carried by Mr. Russell’s votes, at the other meetings by votes which, although not standing in his name, were yet under his control. Thirdly he submitted that the action of giving away 80,000 shares was an ultra vires action of the company, all events an ultra vires action until it had been sanctioned by the company on the grounds that it was a present to Mr. Russell, that is to say, recognising the fact that they have a legal cause of action against Mr. Russell. He submitted that issues of law could only be settled on admitted facts, and dealing with the plaint, said that paragraph 26 was what they intended to allege against Mr. Russell. Sir Arthur Adams in reply said the question of ultra vires was not raised in any way in the pleadings, only one case being cited in respect of the impossibility of satisfying the court he had a right to sue in case of ultra vires. Dealing with the matter of the option he said that there was no justification for Mr. Hastings to say that the option was obtained secretly. The whole of the documents went to show that the company knew about the transaction from the very start. It was true that the documents did not disclose what went to the Chinaman but that was a matter of subtraction. What Mr. Russell got was as plain as daylight. Counsel went into details regarding the transaction and then said he was glad to have heard his learned friend say that the plaint was not drawn up by him. In the plaint, whether intentionally or not, there was a very ingenuous attempt to place the documents in such order that a very different view could be taken of the transaction. At this stage Mr. Hastings protested against Sir Arthur’s remarks and said that the plaint was drawn up by Messrs. Bradell and Mundell, two gentlemen who enjoyed the very highest reputation at the Bar. Sir Arthur replied to the effect that he would have made the same remarks had both these gentlemen been present in court. Dealing with the documents attached to the plaint Sir Arthur said that the events in their proper order were: - 1. On September 25th Hong Guan got that option (Exhibit B.) 2. On September 27th he brought the option to Mr. Russell 3. On the same date Mr. Russell wrote a long letter to Hong Guan in reference to the option. (Exhibit D.) 4. On the same date Mr. Russell gave Hong Guan the letter of authority (Exhibit C.) 5. On the same date Mr. Russell wrote another letter to Hong Guan (Exhibit E.) 6. On October 5th the amended option was given (Exhibit A.) According to the sequence in which the documents were attached to the plaint they were as under: -Paragraph 6 of plaint refers to item 6, Ex A; paragraph 7 to item 1, Ex B; 8 to 2; 10 to 3, Ex D; 9 to 4, Ex C; and 11 to 5, Ex E. Taking the documents as they came into being the first one referred to was Exhibit B addressed Ng Hong Guan, a letter dated the 25th of September which counsel read out. Dealing with the other documents, all of which counsel read, he said that the letter of authority was given to Ng Hong Guan after Mr. Russell had received the option. It was a mere coincidence that it was given on the same day when the option was received and was intended for the purpose of securing other options. Counsel claimed that the option was obtained by Mr. Russell in his private capacity and not as Trustee of the Company. When the option was obtained Hong Guan requested $60,000 to be paid into his account in the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation. He asked, who paid that $60,000. It was Mr. Russell who paid that money, not the Malayan Collieries Ltd. There was no dispute about that. He submitted that there was the fullest disclosure in everything connected with the transaction. Counsel next dealt with the Articles of Association of the company, which he said, gave the directors power to purchase that option giving shares in exchange. The next matter referred to was the inquiry into the purchase by the referees, to which meeting Mr. Peck was invited but refused to attend. A discussion then followed on voidable contracts and disclosure, after which Sir Arthur dealt with the rights of shareholders to sue and advanced argument in support of the policy of the company in regard to the transaction and their present attitude in the matter. Speaking on Mr. Hasting’s application for leave to amend the plaint he said that it was rather suspicious coming at that juncture. Referring to the Silver Light case he said Mr. Peck could have called a meeting if he got 10 per cent support. He knew better than that. He adopted another attitude. Counsel having gone into the other points raised by Mr. Hastings in his address concluded by saying that it was an undoubted fact that the company had taken much trouble to go into all the facts thoroughly and found that the company need not sue.

(Below:From The Straits Times, 2 May 1923, Page 10, from Archie Russell’s evidence in the case he brought against Hong Guan).

January 20 interview with Hong Guan, Legge came to see him in his office. He then handed witness a letter addressed to Legge and written by Hong Guan. Mr. Shearn: Is that the letter? - Yes (Copy) Strictly private. My dear Mr. Legge, - After interviewing my father who is in a better mood, I have since given him my full explanations. Now there are several points which I would like to discuss with you which, I hope, you will believe it. Firstly, is payment. Can you try and get from Jar Dols. $30,000 payable Dols. $20,000 in K.L. and balance in H.K. (i.e. $10,000 Dols.) I think you had better use your discretion and bring the figure up to the margin. You are speaking always that I have suspicion on you, but I am not like that, in fact I am very annoyed with Jar. Not only you have used your best wits to settle this matter for me but to which my future depends entirely on you, viz: - 1. To be my witness of not compromising with Jar. 2. 2. To speak to nobody about my whereabouts and with whom I am working. 3. To clear my way and future success. When I write these things, you will no doubt, recollect whether I have no brain to have any suspicion of you. Think what I have done from the start when you interviewed Jar. I pin my faith and success on you. If I can take from that point of view, why 1/2way. Surely I am not going to be stopped half way. God only knows. You know you practically know my affairs from A to Z, and you are, no doubt, the most suitable man to settle this affair having come to understand both parties. Now clear away from your mind that suspicion and forget all about it, and take yourself to be in my place, as if myself is making the negotiation. I would like you very much to settle on the best terms, although to show good faith I have given to S. a letter authorizing settlement of Dols $30,000. Use your best wits to get as much as you can. Surely you can do it, if you take my interest solemnly. Conditions: - 1. Settlement about say, Dols $30,000 2. My work in H K to be confirmed 3. Ula Pacca Corp reorganize it 4. Interest in all undertakings in China 5. Etc. Please try Jar again and bring him round with your excellent whips. I am entirely depending on you, and certainly you would not like to see self and family ruined. You may think that there will be no benefit to you in case of a settlement, but though I may not repay you for work what you have done, but I hope to be able to do it one of these days so long as I am living. Kindly let me know your ways and as soon as everything is settled wire me and I will go down and settle up. This is my last word. Re the Dols 20,000 you mentioned the other day. It is really impossible, but if you can induce Jar say about Dols 30,000, and I will induce the old man or even for Dols 27,000. Please do your best for me, I leave everything entirely to your discretion. God only knows, and if I cannot do anything to help you, God will bless you so long as we live. I am very anxious for a reply after you have been to see Jar, and will rite to you further on the subject. I am expecting to get away day after day, and hope you will help my poor friends continually during my absence and also during your stay in Singapore. Therefore depending on you. Best wishes for wife. Do write to me, I am leaving everything to you, and God will guide you in your undertaking. Yours sincerely NG HONG GUAN PS Remember time is coming near for next month’s fixture. So allow me to get away soon, as time is critical.

The Singapore Press and Free Advertiser 24 January 1923 page 6 LOCAL WIRES MALAYAN COLLIERIES CASE FOOC KL Jan 23 Mr. Justice Farrer- Manby delivering judgement this afternoon in the case of F. C. Peck vs. J. A. Russell, Malayan Collieries and others, granted the plaintiff leave to amend his plaint within 21 days, and in default of such amendment dismissed the action with costs. 0. (57 words)

The Straits Times, 24 January 1923, Page 9  MALAYAN COLLIERIES CASE. (From Our Own Correspondent.) Kuala Lumpur, January 24. In the Supreme Court, yesterday, Mr. Justice Farrer Manby delivered judgment in the case in which F. C. Peck, on behalf of himself and others, sued A. Russell, of Russell and Company, agents for the Malayan Collieries, for the recovery of secret profits over the purchase of the Malayan Collieries’ Borneo property. His Lordship, after a lengthy judgment ordered the plaint to be amended within 21 days after paying costs, or the action would be dismissed. (90 words)

The Straits Times, 25 January 1923, Page 9  0. MALAYAN COLLIERIES. (From Our Own Correspondent.) Kuala Lumpur, January 25. In his judgment in the Malayan Collieries case, Mr. Justice Farrer-Manby says, inter alia: On the plaint and on the documents attached thereto, is the existence of “C” sufficient to give plaintiff a right of action? etc. (276 words)  

THE MALAY MAIL, FRIDAY JANUARY 26TH, 1923. PECK—RUSSELL THE FULL JUDGMENT No Cause of Action Disclosed. In the Supreme Court on Tuesday afternoon, as already briefly announced, the acting Chief Judicial Commissioner, the Hon. Mr. Justice Farrer-Manby delivered his judgment on the several specific issues raised by defendant in the civil suit F.C. Peck, plaintiff, versus J. A. Russell, J. A. Russell and Co., and the Malayan Collieries Limited, defendants. During the course of a lengthy judgment his Lordship intimated that the plaint disclosed no cause of action, and no claim for damages. Also, that the defendant Mr. J. A. Russell must get back the property in the event of Mr. Peck being successful. His Lordship gave liberty to plaintiff to amend his plaint on payment of all costs to date, such amendment to be filed in Court within 21 days, otherwise the suit would be dismissed with costs. Following is the full text of the judgment.

(See The Straits Times, 27 January 1923, Page 9, below for full judgment)

The Straits Times, 27 January 1923, Page 10 Malayan Collieries. To the Editor of the Straits Times. Sir, - We are instructed to draw your attention to the item headed "Malayan Collieries” appearing in the fourth column of page of Page 9 of your issue dated January 25. It would appear from the report of "your own correspondent" which report consists of a few wrongly connected excerpts from a lengthy judgment, that the plaintiff, Mr. Peck, has been given leave to amend his plaint, and that if he does amend he can thereupon proceed with the suit. This is not so: His Lordship Mr. Justice Farrer-Manby found in most definite terms that Mr. Peck could not proceed with his suit unless he first paid all the costs to date and amended his plaint so as to allege that the majority of votes against the suit cast at the general meeting of Malayan Collieries, Ltd., of November 21 last, had been improperly obtained by Mr. Russell and that even if Mr. Peck did pay these costs and amend his plaint he could under no circumstances recover damages or the profits made by Mr. Russell but could claim only the rescission of the contract, in which case Mr. Russell would get back the Goenoeng Batoe Besar property. The judge did not say that after this amendment the suit could then proceed but it was expressly ordered that the argument upon the amendment would be heard. We send you a copy of the formal order. We have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servants, POOLEY & CO. (There is absolutely nothing to complain of in our reproduction of the Judge’s own summary of his conclusions. We are today printing the full judgment. - Ed., S.T.) (293 words)

The Straits Times, 27 January 1923, Page 9 0. Malayan Collieries. 0. Judgment on Preliminary Issues. 0. (From Our Own Correspondent.) 0. Kuala Lumpur, January 25. 0. The following is the full text of the judgment of Mr. Justice Farrer-Manby, in the Supreme Court, Kuala Lumpur, in the case in which Mr. F. C. Peck, on behalf of himself and other shareholders of Malayan Collieries, sued J. A. Russell, J. A. Russell and Co., and the Malayan Collieries. The judgment is made on the preliminary point argued some weeks ago, in which the defendant Russell asked that certain issues be framed and decided under chapter XIV of the Civil Procedure Code. 0. His Lordship said: - This is an action by a shareholder, a Mr. Peck, on behalf of himself and the other shareholders in Malayan Collieries Ltd., against the company and a Mr. J. A. Russell who at all material times was chairman of directors and against his firm, Messrs. J. A. Russell and Co., the agents and secretaries of the company. 0. On the action being called on for trial the defendant Russell asks that certain issues be framed and decided under the chapter XIV of the Civil Procedure Code because he alleges the plaintiff has no right to sue him in the present form of his plaint and he asks that the plaint be struck out as disclosing no cause of action. The court should not refuse to frame issues however much it would prefer to hear and determine the whole action and it may be that this course may eventually shorten the litigation. 0. The allegations in the plaint against defendant Russell are generally charges of fraudulent concealment of a certain transaction whereby he was enabled to put into his pocket a large sum of money, part of the assets of the company. 0. This being so the court has to inform itself, as well as may be, what circumstances are disclosed by the plaint and the documents attached thereto and by defences of the company and of the defendant Russell. 0. These proceedings are not by way of demurrer, now obsolete, but they are taken under and by virtue of chapter XIV of our Code and section 144 (i) says: “ Issues arise when a material proposition… of law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other” (ii) and (iii) explain the nature of a material proposition and how it is t be dealt with and (v) says “ At the first hearing of the suit the Court may…after reading the plaint and written statements ascertain upon what material proposition… of law the parties are at variance and thereupon proceed to frame and record the issue…” Section 145 provides for the trail of these issues by law. Section 146 (b) and (c) provide for the use of the plaint or written statements (if any) tendered in the suit and for the use of written documents tendered by either party. 0. I am of the opinion that the provisions of this chapter amply entitle me to regard the defences filed as well as the plaint. There remain only the documents attached to the defence of the defendant Russell and the memorandum and articles of association of the company. I think they are covered also by the chapter in such a case as this, but even if it not so it is clearly the duty of the court to take all available steps to ascertain the true position when dealing with the affairs of corporations. 0. To ascertain the real wishes of a corporation a court will even adjourn and it seems that it could, if it is thought fit to do so, actually direct that a general meeting be held at which the voting would show what the wishes of the majority were. 0. In MacDougal v. Gardener 1 Ch. D. at page 22 James L.J. says: “Any one of the shareholders might have filed his bill in the name of the company and then if the directors had said ‘You are not the company: the majority do not act with you but with us’ the court would, as it has done in other cases, have taken the means of ascertaining which party it is, the plaintiffs or the defendants, which really represent the majority of the company”. 0. These words were quoted in the judgment of Jessel M.R. in Pender v. Lushington 6 Ch. D. at page 79 and he follows that quotation with the words “ I suppose he means that the court may direct a meeting to be called”. In Harben v. Philip 23 Ch. D. page 14 the Court of Appeal adjourned to allow a general meeting to be held and resumed again after resolutions had been passed disapproving of the company’s name being used as co- plaintiff. 0. There are other English cases also where it is clear that it is the court’s duty to go to the utmost length to ascertain which side the majority of the shareholders take. Therefore it seems to me that I should look at everything tended in this case and it seems that the documents attached to the defences and the memorandum and articles of association are proper documents to be considered in framing and deciding issues of law in this case. Some affidavits have been made, but were not formally tendered and I do not look at them. In dealing with corporations the court should be at pains to find out all that it can before it interferes on behalf of the minority, because the consenting shareholders in a resolution have equally strong wishes in connection with anything done as the dissenting shareholders and interference by the court must be as far as possible avoided. 0. Now the plaintiff’s case is that the defendant Russell acquired on behalf of the company some valuable property and he put in his own pocket the difference between the prices paid to the original owners and the price paid by the company as if he were a stranger and had bought for himself and resold to the company. 0. If the pleadings disclose such a state of affairs then there can be no doubt that the plaintiff has the right to prove it, because the property would be ab initio the property of the company and any resolution of the shareholders condoning such a thing would be ultra vires because they could not give away the assets of the company against the wishes of a single dissentient shareholder. Every corporator has an interest in the assets of his corporation. 0. “ If a majority affirms the proposition which is ultra vires the minority are not bound. It is this, it is conceived, which lies at the root of Menier v. Hooper’s Telegraph Company 9 Ch. 350.” Buckley on Companies Act 8th edition page 548. This principle is said by the learned author to be ”at the root of’ Menier v. Hooper’s Telegraph Company, but in that case a majority were benefiting themselves at the expense of the minority. That class of case is different from this in that here all shareholders would benefit or suffer alike. In this case by resolutions at a general meeting of the company the shareholders have by a majority excluding the defendant Russell's votes declared their ratification of the transaction with him and their determination not to sue him. But in spite of that resolution if the property be from the first the company’s plaintiff can sue as he has done because any such resolution is ultra vires. 0. We must next examine the plaint and the document annexed thereto to discover if a case of this kind is disclosed. The events happened in this order according to the plaint. On September 25, 1920, one Hong Guan was given an option for the purchase or for working this property, a mine, by the Eastern Mining and Rubber Co. Limited. 0. On September 27, 1920 Hong Guan took the option to the defendant Russell and on the same day the defendant Russell writes exhibit “D” to Hong Guan. But also on the same day the defendant Russell gave Hong Guan exhibit “C” which is an authority to apply for options over coal properties in the Dutch East Indies on behalf of the company. 0. On this document plaintiff puts a sinister interpretation. He says this document began the fraud on the company. It was to enable Hong Guan to get the option. The defendant Russell says this document exhibit “C” had nothing to do with the option in question which he was already acquiring for himself but it was a general authority to obtain options for the company. As I understand it these are the general facts of which proof would be attempted should the case proceed. 0. On October 1, 1920, the defendant Russell writes to Hong Guan Exhibit “E” in effect accepting the offer the option which Hong Guan reports as fixed up but asking for amendments. On October 5, 1920, the amended option is given to Hong Guan by the Eastern Mining Co. 0. On November 19, 1920, Hong Guan transferred it to Khoo Wee Chuan and the same day Khoo Wee Chuan transferred it to the defendant Russell. 0. On November 3, 1920, the directors of the company agreed to buy it and on June 10, an agreement exhibit “G” was drawn up as between defendant Russell and the company. 0. At this stage I ought to say that by article 92 of the articles of association of the company the defendant Russell was fully entitled to deal with the company provided disclosure was made of his interest in the undertaking- a notice that he was a member of the firm dealing with the company being sufficient disclosure of his interest. 0. It seems to me that plaintiff relies almost entirely on the existence of exhibit “C” to take the case out of any ordinary dealing by a director with his company. 0. On the plaint and on the documents attached thereto is the existence of “C” sufficient to give plaintiff a right of action? I do not think it is sufficient. Hong Guan had acquired the option two days before “C” was given to him. How then did ”C” enable him to get it? 0. I have to be careful to avoid going into questions of fact but I note that exhibit “D” is headed “Malayan Collieries Ltd”, but I also note that it does not show that defendant Russell was dealing on behalf of the company: indeed he writes in the first person singular and in exhibit “E” he s seen making payments by himself of the $60,000 deposit. 0. Then there is the allegation in the plaint of non-disclosure to support plaintiff’s case that the purchase was for and in behalf of the company. 0. I see no non-disclosure in the documents. There seems to have been sufficient disclosure. The very agreement exhibit “C” recites all that happened with the exception of the agreement between Hong Guan and Khoo Wee Chuan but Khoo Wee Chuan’s agreement of November 10 with the defendant Russell is recited. I do not think one can say that any allegation of non- disclosure can be made solely on this. 0. There is also no allegation of any mandate by the company to acquire this option. If there had been any such mandate the defendant Russell as agent would have been obliged to purchase on his principal’s behalf. 0. Having found that the transaction disclosed on the plaint and on the documents there to attached is not a case of an agent buying for his principal I must find on the authorities that it is either a case of a stranger selling to the company his own property or a case of a director selling to his company property that he had acquired in his private or other business capacity. 0. In neither case can a dissentient shareholder sue as plaintiff has done after the transaction has been ratified or condoned by the majority. In Foss v. Harbottle 67 Eng. Rep 189 is to be found the rule on which all and subsequent cases quoted in the same connection depend, viz. that an act not ultra vires the corporation may only be the subject of complaint by the majority and if the majority agree with it the minority will not be heard. 0. In Mosely v. Alston 41 Eng: Rep at page 837 Lord Chancellor Cottenham puts in a few words the effect of Foss v. Harbottle “ In one respect that was a stronger case for the interposition of this court than the present for the bill stated a case of malversation in the corporate officers which was properly a subject of equitable relief. The plaintiffs sued…on behalf of themselves and all the other shareholders… but the Vice Chancellor after examining all the authorities decided that such a bill could not be supported; and as one of the reasons for coming to that conclusion he said that… there existed in the company the means of rectifying what was complained of by a suit in the name of the corporation.” 0. Numerous cases were quoted which are clear that the rule in Foss v. Harbottle has always been followed. In Lord v. Governor and Co of Copper Miners and others 41 Eng. Rep. at page 1134 the same learned Judge says: - A Court of Equity could not assume jurisdiction in such a case without opening its door to all parties interested in corporations… who although a small minority of the body to which they belong may wish to interfere with the conduct of the majority.” 0. In MacDougall v. Gardiner 1 Ch. D. at page 21 is the position exactly as it appears to me in this case; James L. J. says: “I think it is of the utmost importance in all these companies that the rule which is well-known in this court as the rule in Mosely v. Alston and Lord v. Copper Miners Co., and Foss v. Harbottle should be always adhered to; that is to say that nothing connected with internal disputes between shareholders is to be made the subject of a bill by some one shareholder on behalf of himself and others unless there be something illegal oppressive or fraudulent- unless there is something ultra vires on the part of the company qua company or on the part of the majority of the company so that they are not fit persons to determine it.” 0. Is there any illegality on the part of this majority when they ratified the action and refused to sue? There is none nor was the transaction between the defendant Russell and the company illegal in view if article 92. 0. Is there anything oppressive on the part of the majority? I do not see it in the absence of specific allegations in the claim that the majority was controlled in their voting by the defendant Russell. It seems that he controls about 45 per cent. of the total shares but the resolution not to sue was passed by a large majority without his votes. We can only say a majority is “ oppressive” when the alleged wrongdoer has himself the majority or turns the scale of the majority. In Atwool v. Merryweather 3 Equity page 464, 324 votes were cast for rescinding a transaction and 344 were cast confirming it. The two alleged wrongdoers Merryweather and Whitworth had 105 which were cast in the 344, therefore they clearly were instrumental in turning the scale and as they were guilty of concealment it would obviously be unjust that by their votes they should be able to confirm what was found to be a complete fraud. 0. But both in Atwood and Merryweather and in Menier v. Hooper’s Telegraph Works 9 Ch. App. 350, a majority was to benefit at the expense of the minority- this is clearly “oppressive” and an action by a single shareholder would lie. 0. We have nothing of that sort here and there is no such allegation in the plaint. All the shareholders will benefit alike by this transaction if it turns out to be beneficial to the company and all will lose if it should eventuate in a loss. 0. In the N.W. Transportation Company v. Beaty 12 App. Cases 589 the defendant was held to be entitled actually to vote with the majority and so confirm or adopt a voidable contract into which he, as a director, had entered but it was remarked that it would have been better if he had not done so. However there was no question of fraud or unfair dealings in that case. The defendant was in a fiduciary relationship to the company and because of that he could not have enforced the contract against the company but it was within the competency of the shareholders to adopt or reject and “ in form and in terms they adopted it by a majority of votes, and the vote of the majority must prevail unless the adoption was brought about by unfair or improper means’ Baggalley J. at page 600. 0. If I am right in saying on the documents before me and without having heard the evidence that the defendant Russell is at most shown to have been in a fiduciary position to the company then he could have voted as Beaty did and turned the scale in his favour provided his vote were not impeachable for fraud; and his voting could have been described as “oppressive”. However this need not concern us because the defendant Russell’s votes did not in fact turn the scale. 0. Is there anything fraudulent on the part of the majority? There is no allegation of fraud against the company qua company in the plaint. Counsel for plaintiff told the court he did not allege fraud against the directors saving only the defendant Russell. Plaintiff claims no relief against the company. 0. For these reasons I cannot see how the majority can be said in the words of James L.J. to be “not fit persons to determine it.” 0. The essential difference between the case put forward by plaintiff and that put forward by defendants is clearly illustrated in Cook v. Deeks 1916 1 App. Cases at page 563. 0. “ In their Lordships’ opinion the Supreme Court has insufficiently recognised the distinction between two classes of case and has applied the principle applicable to the case of a director selling his company property which was in equity as well as at law his own and which he could dispose of as he thought fit to the case of a director dealing with a property which though his own at law in equity belonged to the company. 0. The case of N.W.Transportation Co., v. Beaty 12 App. Cases 589 and Burland v. Earle 1902 App. Cases 83 both belonged to the former class. In each directors had sold to the company property in which the company had no interest at law or in equity. If the company claimed any interest by way of the transaction it could only be by affirming the sale in which case such sale though initially voidable would be validated by subsequent ratification. If the company refused to affirm the sale the transaction would be set aside and the parties restored to their former position the directors getting the property and the company receiving back the purchase price. There would be no middle course. The company could not insist on retaining the property while paying less than the price agreed. This would be for the court to make a new contract between the parties. It would be quite another thing if the director had originally acquired the property which he sold to his company under circumstances which made it in equity the property of the company…. “ If their Lordships find on the facts the contract in question was entered into under such circumstances that the directors could not retain the benefit of it for themselves then it belonged in equity to the company and ought to have been dealt with as an asset of the company. Even supposing it to be not ultra vires of a company to make a present to its directors it appears quite certain that directors holding a majority of votes would not be permitted to make a present to themselves. This would be to allow the majority to oppress the minority” 0. Thus having held that in that case the benefit of the transaction belonged to the company their Lordships proceed on page 565 “ It follows that the defendants must account to the Toronto Company for the profits which they have made out of the transaction” It was the facts which led their Lordships to that conclusion and here, although we have not got the facts to go upon, we have to say on the documents in which of the two classes of case this case fails. 0. There the defendants were found guilty of a distinct breach of duty and they tried to exclude their company to their own benefit. The directors as a body were at fault and they used their three quarters voting strength to confirm what they did. 0. I again point out the difference between such a case and this case. Here the directors as a body are not sued in so far as any relief is asked against them- the allegation of fraud is against only one of them and that one has power to sell to his company. On the claim and the documents attached to it there is no concealment disclosed. The mere putting forward of exhibit “C” is not sufficient in view of the fact that, on the face of it, it has nothing to do with the transaction. Counsel for plaintiff urged that every one has a right to bring an action and I quite agree that that is so, where a person is acting in his private capacity; but it is a different state of affairs when he purports to use as a member of a corporation in respect of that corporation’s affairs. 0. The courts must be carefully examine his position and see whether it is one outside the power of the majority to deal with. In Baillie v. Oriental Telephone and Electric Company Ltd., 1915 1 Ch. D. page 503 it was held that a shareholder could sue for a declaration that certain resolutions were not binding. There the action was against the body of directors who were benefiting themselves and there was no full and frank disclosure to the shareholders of the facts upon which they were asked to vote. 0. In Silber Light Co. v. Silber 12 Ch. D. 717 the body of shareholders were charged with mismanagement of the affairs of the company. There were distinct charges made against them. Considerable sums were alleged to have been improperly charged to the company by the defendant and other directors. And as the majority would not sue action was allowed to lie with the minority. So also in Hitchins v. Congrove 38 Eng. Rep. p 917 the body of directors and other fraudulent persons were sued for the return of what they had obtained from the company. 0. It seems that any shareholder can bring an action in fraud against a body of directors if the majority of shareholders refuse to sue but I find no case where he can bring such an action against one director when the other directors and the majority think it better from reasons of policy or some other good reasons to abstain from litigation. Of course if the one fraudulent director followed up his fraud and get the other directors on his side, or if he by his own votes turned the scale at the general meeting or if he obtained a vote in his favour by unfair and improper means the action would lie. In Sokes v. Grosvenor and West End Railway Terminus Hotel Co, Ltd., and others 1897 2 Q.B.D. 124 the section was framed as this is by a shareholder but it was against the body of directors because they controlled the company and not as here against one director with no allegation that he controlled the company. So also in Mason v. Harris 11 Ch. D. page 97 defendant had established a control over the other two directors and he had a preponderance of votes in the company- therefore he had sole control of the company. 0. On page 106 of that report appears an explanation of Duckett v. Gover 6 Ch. D is an interpellation by Jessell M. R. Apparently the leave to join the company as plaintiff was given subject to the company’s willingness to be joined and as it was to be expected from the report of the case itself in 6 Ch. D. an application was made to strike out the name of the company so joined. It was unsuccessful because at that time the company had sanctioned that step. 0. Without this interpellation and solely from the report of the case in 6 Ch. D I think the inference is that the company was put in as plaintiff against its will. I fail entirely to see how this case is in plaintiff’s favour. It seems to me to be against him. The vendor and the company’s solicitor were sued by a shareholder but the company had to be joined before the action would lie and eventually they joined as plaintiff willingly. The report in 6 Ch. D. is difficult to understand but all is made clear by the interpellation. 0. In Burland v. Earle 1902 App.Ca 83 Lord Davey after setting out the rule of Foss v. Harbottle and Mozley v. Alston says: “ But an exception is made to the second rule where the persons against whom the relief is sort themselves hold and control the majority of the shares in the company and will not permit an action to be brought in the name of the company. In that case the court allows the shareholders complaining to bring an action in their own names.” 0. Again I say that control is not alleged here. Burland and Earle were followed in Dominion Cotton Mills Co. Ltd., v. Anyot and others, 1912 App. Ca 546 where is was held that the plaintiff must show that the majority had acted ultra vires or so abused their powers as to deprive the minority of their rights. 0. Therefore it seems to me after perusal of the cases on the subject that the plaint and the documents attached thereto disclose the circumstances to have been that the defendant Russell was buying for and on behalf of the company. 0. I am of the opinion that they show that he bought for himself and sold it to the company either under article 92 in which case he was a stranger and he could make what terms he liked or that he sold it to the company whilst being in the fiduciary position as a director. If he was in the latter position the majority could and did confirm the transaction. 0. As to the issues recorded in the proceedings 0. (1) I say that in such a case the court may regard the plaint and its attached documents, the defence and its attached documents and the memorandum and articles of association. 0. (2) I say that the plaint discloses no cause of action in the present plaintiff. 0. (3) Having regard the documents set out in (1) above I say that the plaint discloses no cause of action in the present plaintiff. 0. If I am right in my view the plaintiff cannot ask for the repayment of the profits the defendant Russell has made. He can only sue for the rescission of the contract in which case the defendant Russell would get his property back. 0. If I am wrong and the real position is as alleged by plaintiff then the proper relief is the repayment of the profit which the defendant Russell has made, in re Cape Breton Co.,26 Ch. D. 221 Cook v. Deeks (supra) at page 564 0. If I am against the plaintiff on these issues he asks leave to amend in order to allege that the vote of the majority, which is against him, is improper and improperly obtained. 0. The plaint was drawn on July 26, 1922 and the general meeting which confirmed the transaction was held on November 21, 1922. 0. I think, therefore, that plaintiff should be allowed to amend now that he knows the full state of affairs within the company. He ought to have asked for leave to amend at the commencement of the hearing but his doing so now cannot be the cause of any injustice to the defendants and it can be adjusted by his payment of costs to date of amendment. 0. I therefore give him leave to amend to make the allegation necessary to attack the vote within 21 days and I order him to pay all costs to date of the amendment he may of course amend as to his relief claimed if he desires. 0. In default of such amendment I dismiss the action with costs. 0. Sd. P.A. FARRER MANBY, Ag. Chief Judicial Commissioner, Federated Malay States. Kuala Lumpur, 23rd Jan. 1923 0. 0. (4670 words)

The Straits Times, 31 January 1923, Page 8  0. Malayan Collieries. We observe that some person signing himself “The Defendants' Counsel” has written to the Pinang Gazette on "Mr. Peck's Action," and has said, that a telegraphed summary of the judgment, published in the Straits Times, was incorrect, and misleading. That, is absolutely not true, and it is followed by “Defendants' Counsel” suggesting that we have treated the case improperly from the first, which is again grossly offensive and untrue. As “Defendants' Counsel” does not appear to know the law, we would point out to him that a newspaper may be libelled and that it is only when speaking in court that counsel are free from the ordinary penalties of reckless misstatement. (113 words)

The Straits Times, 3 February 1923, Page 10  0. Malayan Collieries. To the Editor of the Straits Times. 0. Sir, I have only to-day read the complete letter signed “Defendants' Counsel" which appeared in the Pinang Gazette of the 29th ultimo, under the heading of "Mr. Peck's' Action” and I think that letter calls for some further reply. 0. I quite fail to see exactly what “Defendants' Counsel" could find to complain of in the telegraphed summary of the findings of the Court which appeared in your issue of the 25th ultimo. In fact it seems to me that the summary given by “Defendants' Counsel" himself, though written by a lawyer, was much more misleading and improper than your telegraphed summary which was presumably supplied by a non-legal reporter. 0. The essential finding of the Court was that the “plaint discloses no cause of action in the present plaintiff”- a finding which was contained in the letter of the “Defendants' Counsel". 0. But it is the last paragraph of that letter to which I wish to draw special attention, viz., “A serious charge of fraud is brought against a man, the papers are full of it. When the charge so brought is dismissed, the papers ignore it. I protest against such journalism.” 0. Now, Sir, that paragraph I unhesitating stigmatise as grossly misleading and improper. No charge of fraud has been dismissed. No charge of fraud has yet been really inquired into by the Court. 0. To find that the plaint discloses no cause of action in the present plaintiff is very different from finding that there is no cause of action by the present plaintiff, and still less from finding that there is no cause of action by the Company. 0. The judgment merely amounts to this, that, in view of the fact that the action is by a shareholder instead of by the Company, the plaint together with the documents attached thereto are not alone (the full evidence not having been heard) sufficient in the opinion of the Court to give the present plaintiff a right to sustain the action. And of course even if this judgment is open to appeal, and will be appealed against provided sufficient funds are forthcoming. - Yours, etc., THE PLAINTIFF. Singapore, February 2, 1923. 0. (380 words)

The Straits Times, 15 February 1923, Page 9 0. MALAYAN COLLIERIES. 0. Allegations of Criminal Intimidation. 0. (From Our Own Correspondent.) 0. Kuala Lumpur. February 14. 0. On the application of Mr. J. A. Russell, the Kuala Lumpur police magistrate today issued a warrant for the arrest of Ng Hong Guan. The facts as alleged are that, on Friday last, Ng Hong Guan demanded from Mr. Russell a sum of $30,000 to induce him to withdraw the civil suit brought by him against Mr. Russell, and to secure his goodwill and evidence in the case of Peck v. Russell and others; that this demand was refused, and, Ng Hong Guan then threatened to give false evidence against Mr. Russell in Mr. Peck’s suit unless the money was paid. The charge in respect of which the warrant has been issued is criminal intimidation. The civil suit referred to, brought by Ng Hong Guan against Mr. Russell for a sum estimated at half a million dollars, was withdrawn last Monday. Kuala Lumpur, February 15. 0. In the Supreme Court this morning, Mr. Shearn, appearing for the defendant, made application for costs in the civil suit, Ng Hong Guan v. Russell, which were granted. 0. 0. (186 words)

THE MALAY MAIL, THURSDAY FEBRUARY 15TH, 1923. SUPREME COURT Ng Hong Guan vs. J. A. Russell ACTION WITHDRAWN Before the Hon. Mr. Justice Farrer-Manby, in the Supreme Court this morning, Mr. A.B. Sanders made formal application for the withdrawal of the above-named suit, which was actually withdrawn by formal application to the Registrar on Monday last. The amount involved was about $500,000. Besides Mr. Sanders there was present Mr. E.D. Shearn for plaintiff. Mr. Sanders said. This is an application to withdraw the suit under Chapter XXV of the Civil Procedure Code. I have my client’s written instructions to do so. In withdrawing this suit I wish to make it clear that I advised my client, from the very beginning that unless he could produce to me evidence either written or oral in corroboration of his own statement his case must fail and I should not be justified in submitting it to this Court. He assured me that upon obtaining discovery and in particular on seeing the original of a certain letter he had written to Mr. Russell I should find the corroboration I desired and that he had other corroboration beyond that. I gave notice in due course to Messrs. Pooley and Co., to produce the letter and on inspecting it I found that it did not support my client’s case. He has failed to produce to me other corroboration and about a month ago I definitely advised him that I must withdraw and that if he intended to continue he must instruct another lawyer or conduct his own case. Since that advice was given I understand my client has seen fit to approach Mr. Russell in a certain manner which may be the subject of investigation in another Court and about which I will under the circumstances say nothing except to assure your Lordship that my client’s conduct was in direct disregard of the express warning I gave to him not under any circumstances to adopt the attitude he appears to have adopted. My learned friend who has been in close touch with me throughout and with whom I have had many interviews will I am sure corroborate that I have been studiously considerate and fair to him and his client. There is another matter that I would wish to make clear and that is in relation to the application heard in November last on the part of the Defendant that this suit should follow the suit brought by Mr. Peck. During the course of the argument I pointed out that, whether Mr. Russell had been acting as a partner or as an agent of Malayan Collieries Ltd., the case brought by my client must proceed. My argument was based on the pleading in the two suits and the allegations therein contained as allegations pleaded not as facts proved. The argument was purely hypothetical and was directed to meet all the capacities in which the defendant could have acted whether as principal or agent with or without authority. It has been understood and represented by persons without any legal training or understanding as amounting to an allegation by my client that Mr. Russell acted as agent for the Malayan Collieries. In fairness to Mr. Russell and in view of the pending suit by Mr. Peck I wish to make it clear that my client’s allegation was that he had dealt with Mr. Russell as a partner and not as the Agent of Malayan Collieries Ltd., and that as two individuals they had entered into a partnership to sell the option to Malayan Collieries Ltd. This is plainly set out in the plaint I drew. Mr. Russell alleges that he purchased the option from Mr. Ng Hong Guan outright with a view to reselling it to Malayan Collieries Ltd., or some other firm or Company. My client for the reason stated is unable to controvert Mr. Russell’s case and this suit in consequence has been withdrawn. This suit with your Lordship’s permission is withdrawn on terms that the defendant is to have his costs of action and these and the costs already allowed to plaintiff are to be taxed and set off against each other and any balance owing to be paid to the party entitled thereto.”

The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser 19 February 1923 page 4 THE COLLIERY TRANSACTION A New Development On the information of Mr. J. A. Russell the Magistrate, Kuala Lumpur, says Wednesdays Malay Mail, issued a warrant for the arrest of Ng Hong Guan. The facts alleged are that Ng Hong Guan on Friday last demanded from Mr. J. A. Russell a sum of $30.000, to induce him to withdraw the civil suit brought by him against Mr. Russell, and to secure his goodwill and evidence in the case of Peck v. Russell and others; and that this demand was refused, and Ng Hong Guan then threatened to give false evidence against Mr. Russell in Mr. Peck’s suit unless the money was paid. The charge in respect of which the warrant has been issued is criminal intimidation. The civil suit referred to, brought by Ng Hong Guan against Mr. Russell for the sum estimated at half a million dollars, was withdrawn last Monday. 0. (161 words)

The Straits Times, 19 February 1923, Page 9 0. Malayan Collieries 0. Ng Hong Guan's Action Withdrawn. 0. (From Our Own Correspondent.) 0. Kuala Lumpur, February 16. 0. As stated in our issue of Thursday’s date in the Supreme Court at Kuala Lumpur before Mr. Justice Farrer-Manby, Mr. E. D. Shearn appearing for the defendant made formal application for costs in the Civil suit between Ng Hong Guan and J. A. Russell. The action as stated previously was withdrawn last Monday. 0. Mr. A. B. Saunders appearing for the plaintiff, in consenting to the terms of the defendants counsel, said:- 0. This an application to withdraw the suit under Chapter XXV of the Civil procedure Code. I have my client’s written instructions to do so. 0. In withdrawing this suit I wish too make it clear that I advised my client from the beginning, that unless he could produce to me evidence either written or oral in corroboration of his own statement his case must fail and I should not be justified in submitting it to this Court. He assured me that upon obtaining discovery and in particular on seeing the original of a certain letter he had written to Mr. Russell I should find the corroboration that I desired and that he had other corroboration beyond that. I gave notice in due course to Messrs. Pooley and Co. to produce the letter and on inspecting it I found that it did not support my client’s case. He has failed to produce to me other corroboration and about a month ago I definitely advised him that I must withdraw and that if he intended to continue he must instruct another lawyer or conduct his own case. 0. Since that advice was given I understand my client has seen fit to approach Mr. Russell in a certain manner which may be the subject of investigation in another Court and about which I will under the circumstances say nothing except to assure your Lordship that my client’s conduct was in direct disregard to the express warning I gave him not to not under any circumstances to adopt the attitude he appears to have adopted. My learned friend who has been in close touch with me throughout and with whom I have had many interviews will I am sure corroborate that I have been studiously considerate and fair to my client. 0. There is one matter that I would wish to make clear and that is in relation to the application heard in November last on the part of the Defendant that this suit should follow the suit brought by Mr. Peck. During the course of the argument I pointed out that, whether Mr. Russell had been acting as a partner or as an agent of Malayan Collieries Ltd., the case brought by my client must proceed. 0. My argument was based on the pleading in the two suits and the allegations therein contained as allegations pleaded not as facts proved. 0. The argument was purely hypothetical and was directed to meet all the capacities in which the defendant could have acted whether as principal or agent with or without authority. It has been understood and represented by persons without any legal training or understanding as amounting to an allegation by my client that Mr. Russell acted as an agent for Malayan Collieries. In fairness to Mr. Russell and in view of the pending suit by Mr. Peck I wish to make it clear that my client’s allegation was that he had dealt with Mr. Russell as a partner and not as the Agent of Malayan Collieries Ltd and that as two individuals they had entered into a partnership to sell the option to Malayan Collieries, Ltd. 0. Mr. Russell alleges that he purchased the option from Ng Hong Guan out- right with a view to reselling it to Malayan Collieries Ltd., or some other firm or company. My client for the reason stated is unable to controvert Mr. Russell’s case and this suit has in consequence been withdrawn. 0. The suit with your Lordship’s permission is withdrawn on terms that the defendant is to have his costs of action and these and the costs already allowed to plaintiff are to be taxed and set off against each other and any balance owing to be paid to the party entitled thereto. 0. His Lordship granted the application. 0. 0. (714 words)

The Port of Prai. [Articles] 0. The Straits Times, 24 February 1923, Page 10 and COMMISSION OF ENQUIRY FOR PRAI. [Articles] 0. The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser (1884-1942), 24 February 1923, Page 6 0. COMMISSION OF ENQUIRY FOR PRAI. 0. The Port of Prai. 0. Future Administration of The Undertaking. 0. The following have been appointed by the Governor as a Joint Committee of the Straits Settlements and Federated Malay States to consider the future administration of Prai:- Hon. Mr. A. B. Voules (Chairman), Mr. P. A. Anthony, C.M.G., Hon. Mr. A.M. Pountney,C.M.G., C.B.E., Mr. C.S. Alexander, Hon. Mr. J. Mitchell, Hon. Mr. A. N. Kenion, Hon. Mr. V. Gibbons, Captain W. H. Calthrop Calthrop, M.A., R.N., and J. A. Russell. 0. The terms of reference of the Committee are:- 0. (1) To consider and report what further works (including dredgers, tugs etc.) will be required in order to make the Port of Prai (including the wharves and docks) adequate to deal with requirements of, and to attract, ocean going steamers; 0. (2) To advise what expenditure on Capital Account will be required for the above purpose, and what the probable annual expenditure on revenue account will be; 0. (3) To advise how expenditure on Capital Account and on Revenue Account will be met; 0. (4) To advise how the Port of Prai (including wharves and docks) should be administered in future; and in particular to advise whether a Port Trust should be constituted to administer the Port, and if so, how such a Port Trust should be financed. 0. (229 words)

The Straits Times 27 February 1923 page 9 MALAYAN COLLIERIES CASE In chambers in the Kuala Lumpur Supreme Court, yesterday morning, before Mr. Lionel Woodward, C.J.C., Mr. E. D. Shearn appearing for the first and second respondents in the case in which Mr. F. C. Peck, on behalf of the shareholders of the Malayan Collieries, sues Mr. J. A. Russell, J. A. Russell and Company and the Malayan Collieries, made application that this appeal be heard before the Court of appeal assembling on March 5. The application was refused. Other applications for security for costs of the appeal were postponed sine die.

The Straits Times, 7 March 1923, Page 8  0. Malayan Collieries. The second magistrate heard a case yesterday in which a Chinese, named Ng Hong Guan, is charged with criminal intimidation to Mr. J. A. Russell, in Kuala Lumpur, on February 9. The charge bears upon the evidence given by Ng Hong Guan in the recent Malayan Collieries action. The defendant gave himself up to the Singapore detective branch and was brought before the court by Chief Detective Inspector Costello. Mr. V. D. Knowles appeared for the defence and pleaded not guilty. The case will be continued on Monday next. The defendant was released on bail of $1,000 in two sureties. (105 words)

The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser (1884-1942), 7 March 1923, Page 7  MALAYAN COLLIERIES CASE. There was sequel to the recent action against the Malayan Collieries in Kuala Lumpur, in the Second Police Court yesterday morning, when Ng Hong Guan was charged before Mr. Dawson with criminal intimidation to Mr. J. Russell, on February 9 last, in Kuala Lumpur. It appears that the charge is connected with the question of the Ng Hong Guan’s evidence in the Kuala Lumpur action. The accused, who surrendered himself to the Detective Department, was produced in court at the instance by Chief Detective inspector Costello. He was legally represented by Mr. Knowles, who entered a plea of not guilty. The case will be mentioned again on Monday, before the Second Court, and the accused was released on bail of $1,000 in two sureties. (126 words)

The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser (1884-1942), 13 March 1923, Page 7 NG HONG GUAN CHARGED. Ng Hong Guan, who stands charged with criminal intimidation to Mr. J. Russell, the offence being alleged to have been committed in Kuala Lumpur a short time ago, was up before Mr. Ahearne in the Second Court yesterday morning. Mr. Knowles, who appeared on behalf of the accused, said that arrangements had been made for the accused to go back to Kuala Lumpur for trail on Wednesday. Hong Guan was on bail, and Counsel did not think that it was necessary to take any evidence in Singapore. The arrangement made was really a transfer from the local court to the Kula Lumpur Court. Chief Detective Inspector Costello said that the order made would be to the effect that the accused was on bail to surrender himself at Kuala Lumpur on Thursday morning next. There was no question of any risk being taken, because the accused had been trying to get himself arrested for the last three weeks. His Worship: Most of us spend our lives trying to avoid it. The order applied was made. The case will accordingly be struck off the list here. (187 words)

The Straits Times, 13 March 1923, Page 8 The case of the Chinese Ng Hong Guan, who is charged with criminal intimidation towards Mr. J. A. Russell, in Kuala Lumpur, in respect of the Malayan Collieries action, was mentioned again yesterday before the second magistrate. Mr. V. D. Knowles appeared for the defendant and said that arrangements had been made for the hearing of the case in Kuala Lumpur and the defendant was to return there on Wednesday. The defendant was on bail and his counsel did not think it was necessary for any evidence to be given in the Singapore Court. Chief Detective Inspector Costello, to whom the defendant had surrendered himself, said that the defendant was on bail to surrender himself at Kuala Lumpur and there was no risk because the defendant had placed himself in the hands of the police of his own accord. The Magistrate made the necessary order transferring the case to the Kuala Lumpur court. (153 words

The Straits Times 16 March 1923 page 8 Yesterday Mr. Ng Hong Guan surrendered himself at Kuala Lumpur in connection with the charge of alleged intimidation, on the complaint of Mr. J. A. Russell. Mr. Ng Hong Guan pleaded not guilty before the magistrate, who allowed the accused bail of $1,000, and fixed the case for April 9, on which occasion Mr. V. D. Knowles will appear for Mr. Ng Hong Guan

Letter From District Officer Ulu Selangor to the Secretary to Resident. No. (5) in USL 86/23 District office, Rasa, 26 March 1923. Recommends issue of a new lease to Mr. J. A. Russell in place of the former Mining Lease No 2968, Mukim of Peretak. Sir, I have the honour to inform you that I have received from Mr. J. A. Russell an application for the renewal of mining lease No. 2968 Lot 991, area 52 acres 1 rood 20 poles in the mukim of Perak. 2. The date of the expiration of the lease is 7th August, 1923 and the date of the application of renewal is 24th January, 1923, so that provisions of section 23 of the Mining Enactment have not been fulfilled. 3. The present lease is owned by J.A Russell (1/3) and Mr. Chun Seng (2/3): the latter does not join in the application for renewal and is reported by the former to be an absconding compradore of the Banque de l’Indo Chine, Singapore, for whose arrest a warrant was issued some time ago. 4. The lessees have not complied with the labour conditions prescribed by the Mining Enactment; a copy of the census return of the labour force is enclosed. 5. The co-owner Ng Chun Seng owns Mining Lease 2379 Portion 940 adjoining, but the census is reported not to be sufficient to cover both leases. 6. I recommend a new lease be issued to the applicant on payment of $25/- per acre premium and the usual fees, when the existing lease has expired. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servant, ?JMiron District officer Ulu Selangor. MOKK 71/23 Mining Lease No. 2968 Portion No. 991 Date of Title. 7.8.18 Area . 52a 1r. 20p. Lessee J. A. Russell 1/3 Ng Chun Seng 2/3 Record of Work. Date. Notes. 22.11.18 .40 coolies lampan 26. 5. 19. 30 chabut coolies lampan 24.11.19. 30 ditto 22.6.20 34 ditto 25.11.20 19 ditto 14.6. 21. 12 ditto 8.12.21. 8 ditto 5.6.22. No work.

	1918		1919		1920		1921
	Output	Value	Output	Value	Output	Value	Output	Value
Jan			6.43	425.66			1.50 1/2	91.35
Feb					32.09 1/2	3834.24	15.33	892.57
Mar			4.73	255.11	70	75.39	1.68	67.20
Apri					13.42 1/2	1308.56	1.94	82.63
May			10.46 1/2	663.23	30	23.10	6.46 1/2	313.55
Jun			1.68	111.38	6.47 1/2	522.00	11.56	540.04
Jul			15.34 1/2	1054.55	20.72 1/2	1667.94
Aug	6.84	656.64	6.07 1/2	483.69			10.15	411.16
Sep	1.47	124.21	4.40 1/2	357.68	14.36 1/2	1148.01
Oct			7.87 1/2	615.32	11.21 1/2	751.25	4.62	197.72
Nov			14.30	1109.81	2.57 1/2	177.07	5 1/2	21.88
Dec	8.52	610.23	15.76 1/2	1419.97	3.62	212.11	6.08	278.30

Document in the National Archives of Malaysia Sel. 1639/23

(68 words)

The Malay Mail 28 March 1923 p.8 copied in The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser 31 March 1923 page 5 A serious accident occurred on the Klang- Kuala Lumpur Road on Sunday. Mr. J. A. Russell was returning from a meeting of the Prai Docks Commission at Port Swettenham in his big Cadillac. The road was very wet, the car skidded and over turned completely. Mr Russell, very much shaken but otherwise unhurt, was picked up by a car following his. The Cadillac is however described as “ scrap iron”.

The Straits Times, 5 April 1923, Page 11 0. KAMASAN RUBBER COMPANY. 0. Payment of a Twelve Per Cent Dividend. 0. The following report is officially communicated: - 0. The general meeting of shareholders of the Kamasan Rubber Company, Ltd., was held at the registered office of the company, 1 Embankment, Kuala Lumpur, on March 27, Mr. E. W. Tyler presiding-. 0. Summary: (The meeting is chaired by Mr. E. W. Tyler, who goes through the accounts.. strong financial position.. profit of $28,318.54…dividend 12 per cent… property in god order due to Mr. C. G. Trotter.. thanks to visiting agent J. Murray… estate in full bearing… no jungle to develop.. considering purchasing another property.. but won’t do it unless directors are assured that it wont diminish dividends. Mr. J. A. Russell re –elected as a director.) 0. (613 words)

KUALA LUMPUR NEWS. [Articles] 0. (105 words) The Straits Times 9 April 1923 Page 9 KUALA LUMPUR NEWS FOOC KL April 9 The case against Hong Guan of Singapore, who is charged with criminal intimidation to Mr. J. A. Russell was mentioned in the police court this morning and postponed to the 23rd inst.

K. L. POLICE NEWS [Articles] 0. (54 words) The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser 10 April 1923 page 6 K.L.POLICE NEWS FOOC KL Apr 9th? In the Police Court…. The case of Mr Ng Hong Guan charged by Mr. J. A. Russell with criminal intimidation, was mentioned and postponed for a fortnight.

Page 3 Advertisements Column 1 [Advertisements] 0. The Straits Times, 17 April 1923, Page 3 and Page 12 Advertisements Column 4 [Advertisements] 0. The Straits Times, 19 April 1923, Page 12 0. The Malayan Collieries Limited 0. Cancellation of Lost Share Certificate no. 2101 0. Whereas a Statutory Declaration has been made that the original Share Certificate No. 2101, dated February 1, 1921, in the name of the Trustees of the Estate of Loke Yew, deceased for 5,016 shares, numbered 280,001 to 285, 016, inclusive has been mislaid, lost or destroyed. 0. NOTICE is hereby given that the said Share Certificate bearing Number 2101, is now cancelled in the share books of the Company and such certificate is now null and void and that Share Certificate No. 3221, of the same tenor and bearing date April 7, 1923, has been issued and recorded in the share books of the Company in place thereof. By Order of the Board, J. A. Russell and Co., Secretaries. Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank Buildings, Kuala Lumpur F.M.S. April 13, 1923.

Page 7 Advertisements Column 4 [Advertisements] 0. The Straits Times, 17 April 1923, Page 7 and Page 12 Advertisements Column 3 [Advertisements] 0. The Straits Times, 18 April 1923, Page 12 . Malayan Collieries, Ltd. 0. Closure of Share Registers 0. Notice is hereby given that the share registers of this Company will be closed from Saturday, the 21st to Friday 27th instant (both days inclusive), for the purpose of preparation of Dividend Warrants. By Order of the Board, J. A. Russell and Co., Secretaries, April 17, 1923.

KUALA LUMPUR NEWS. [Articles] The Straits Times, 18 April 1923, Page 9 KUALA LUMPUR NEWS. (From Our Own Correspondent.) Kuala Lumpur April 18. Application made by Mr. E. D. Shearn in Chambers, at the Supreme Court for security for costs in the Malayan Collieries appeal before Sir. Lionel Woodward, C.J.C., a few days ago. His Lordship ordered appellant to furnish security in a sum of $4,000 and $2,500 costs in the case of the first and second respondents and $1,500 costs in the case of the third respondent by May 15, 1923. In default of such security being furnished by that date, the appeal will be dismissed with costs. (242 words)

Malayan Collieries Case. [Articles] The Straits Times, 19 April 1923, Page 8  Malayan Collieries Case. A telegraphic misapprehension in the wire received from our Kuala Lumpur correspondent yesterday respecting the application in the Supreme Court for security of costs in the Malayan Collieries' appeal led us to give the total security ordered by Sir Lionel Woodward at $8,000. The amount should be $4,000 viz., $2,500 in the case of the first and second respondents and $1,500 in the case of the third. (73 words)  

The Straits Times, 19 April 1923, Page 9 and The Malayan Tin and Rubber Journal 30 April, 1923 Vol .X11. No. 8, p. 506 Malayan Collieries, Ltd. Directors' Report for the Past Year. The directors of Malayan Collieries Limited, in their report for the year ended December 31, 1922 state: - Property. The application made to the F.M.S. Government for a further 100 acres of land, required in connection with the company's sand-stowage operations at the Batu Arang, was approved during the year, but a title has not yet been issued. Netherlands East Indian Government certificates for timber concession at Pamoekan Bay were issued by the Mynbouw en Handel Maatschaooij Goenoeng Batoe Besar. Kundang sand Pits. - The Company’s Kundang property was worked on an increasing scale throughout the year, producing a certain amount of tin ore, which ore offset to some extent the cost of obtaining the sand. Mine and Plant. - The general manager’s annual reports upon these are sub- joined. Rebates to mines. - As contracts upon which these rebates had been granted fell in, new contracts were made on an adjusted basis without rebate. The cost during the year to the company of the concessions granted upon old contracts, entered into before the depression in the tin mining industry commenced was $62,306.82 Charters. Coal production from development workings at Pamoekan Bay (which owing to exigencies of development and labour troubles. Had been temporarily suspended) was resumed in late March, 1922 and coal shipments recommenced by the steamer Passat. On the expiration of the steamer Passat’s charter, the larger Steamer Hydra was chartered, while towards the end of the year the steamer Hero was additionally chartered in order to cope with the increasing output. Coal market. -Despite the company having reduced the price of its Batu Arang coal during the year, owing to the general depression prevailing many tin mines and industries either closed down entirely, or reduced the magnitude of their operations, with the result that the demand for fuel fell away, and the company’s coal sales were materially affected. There was also considerable drop in the price of bunkers, and increased competition- especially from Natal- resulting in lower prices being realized for the coal obtained incidental to the development of Pamoekan Bay. All coal produced from this source during the year was, however, readily sold. Suit by Mr. Peck. - Shareholders have been notified from time to time as to the progress of this suit. The present position is that the action has been dismissed with costs, and Mr. Peck has given notice of appeal against the Judge’s decision. Staff.- No staff changes were made during the year. Profits. The profits for the year under review, subject to directors’ and audit fees, amount to $764,869.65 to which is added the unappropriated balance from previous account of $148, 907.98, making $913,777.63. Two interim dividends, each 5% were paid during the year, (equaling 10%) absorbing $310,000, leaving $603,777.63. You will be asked to sanction fees to the directors in respect of 1922 $12,000, the auditors have rendered their account for $2,000, leaving available $589,777.63 which your directors recommend should be dealt with as follows: - Payment of final dividend of 7 ½ %, (making 17 ½ % for the year 1922) $232,500, write off mine development account, $200,000 balance to carry forward to next year’s account $157,277.63 (subject to an appropriation for staff bonus, to be left as formerly to the discretion of the board.) Directors. - the retiring directors are Mr. Adolph Alois Henggeler, and Mr. Chew Kam Chuan, who, being eligible, offer themselves for re- election. Auditors- Messrs. Evatt and Co. retire but, being eligible offer themselves for re- election. The Malay Mail, Thursday, April 19, 1923. p.10 Malayan Collieries General Manager’s Report on Batu Arang. Value of Hydraulic Stowage. Mr. James Barr, General Manager, Malayan Collieries Ltd. reports: I have the honour to submit herewith my report on the work done on your property for the year ended 31st December 1922. Output. - During the year, 266,349 tons of coal were dispatched from the colliery. Of this quantity 176,200 tons were from the upper or 40 ft seam and 87,149 tons from the lower, or 25 ft seam. Coal used in the mine amounted to 16, 378 tons. Underground Development. - This development has taken place principally in what is known as the East mine, which we are opening out on the lower seam. This seam by the way, is 25 ft. thick, and of slightly higher calorific value than the upper seam. It was really this higher calorific value and the desire to give our clients the best value in our power that influenced the decision to start operations on the East mine. Our action has apparently been justified, for several uses have recently commented upon the better quality of the coal being supplied. Underground Fires. - No serious fire, due to spontaneous combustion has occurred. The disappearance of this bugbear may fairly be attributed to the continuous use of hydraulic stowage, and to improved ventilation. Notwithstanding this fortunate state of affairs, we endeavour to prevent ourselves from being lulled into a sense of false security by keeping a strict system of patrols going. Hydraulic stowage. - This practice continues to function efficiently, and 13,000 yards of sand per month are regularly sluiced underground to replace current extraction of coal. Ventilation. - This matter is one of the most important that the Colliery engineer is called upon to deal with. At Batu Arang we never case to devote much attention to the subject, and our efforts are reflected in the steady improvement noticeable. Pumping. - Underground pumping practice has been re- arranged, and all mine and stowage water is now handled from a central pumping station, in which are installed four electrically driven turbine pumps, each capable of delivering 500 gallons of water per minute. One of these pumps is held in reserve, to be used in case of breakdown of any other member of the set. Open casts. -These continued to open up well, and work proceeded without interruption throughout the year. Stripping of overburden has been kept well ahead of coal extraction, and 260,000 tons of coal now stand uncovered ready for removal. Surface. - The pit top has been extended and re-arranged, and the mine output can now be handled more efficiently in consequence. A new steel boiler chimney 9ft 3in in diameter, and 132 ft high above ground level, has been erected and put into commission. The old chimney, which was 6ft 3ins in diameter, and 100 ft high has been taken down and shipped to the Borneo Colliery, where it will be re-erected and has many useful years of life ahead. Kundang Sand Pits. - An additional 8 inch nozzle pump, and a 6 inch gravel pump, has been added to the plant here, and a large sluice dam on the farther side of the F.M.S. Government Railway has been put into use. The sand stowage bins have been enlarged, and the additions have been conducive to the smooth working of the sand traffic, which has now assumed large dimensions. In order to minimize the danger of losing tin, the ‘palong’ has been lengthened, and although the mining of sand for hydraulic stowage and underground is the primary object of our operations at Kundang, the revenue derived from the tin recovered during the operation forms a useful set-off to the cost of stowage, and justifies every effort to keep the recovery at as high a point as possible. Labour Employed. - The average number of coolies employed in and about the Colliery during the year was slightly under 2,000. Health and accidents. - The health of the staff and labourers has again been very good, and considering the size of our undertaking the number of accidents has happily been phenomenally few. General- The plant, rolling stock and underground workings have been well looked after, and are in excellent working order. There has been a steady increase in efficiency in all departments, and as showing that this is really so it may be mentioned that the output is now easily maintained with an eight hour working day, as against the twenty-four hour working day which was the order for many years. It goes without saying that the increased efficiency was only obtained through the whole hearted co-operation of the staff, to whom my best thanks are due. Pamoekan Bay Colliery I have the honour to submit herewith my report on the work done at your Pamoekan Bay Colliery during the year ended 31st December, 1922. Production- Coal production for the year amounted to 31, 385 tons, won from development work. Underground Development. - Upwards of 3,000 ft. of headings and cut-throughs have been driven during the year. The progress of the work disclosed the presence of several faults in the seam. Only one dislocation was serious, but in every case the roof in the vicinity of the fault gave trouble. The mine is now in a position to yield an output of 350 tons per eight hour day. By working two or three shifts daily, this amount can be correspondingly increased. In a very short time we shall have coal cutting machines at work, and when this is an accomplished fact the mine will automatically pass from development stage to that of normal production. These machines are electrically driven, and will undercut to a depth of 6 feet. After under-cutting, the coal can be easily shot down in large lumps, and filled away by any ordinary coolie, at a lower cost per ton than has hitherto been the case. During the course of development a small amount of work was done in opening up the lower seam, several outcrops of which were known to exist on the property. The seam, separated from that at present being worked by 40 ft of strata, exhibits the following section: - Bottom Coal 3ft 4ins. Shale 2ft 6ins. Top coal 1ft 6ins. Samples analysed gave the following results: -

	Bottom Sec.	Top Sec.
	3ft. 4ins	1ft. 6ins
	percent.	per cent
Moisture	3.9	4.30
Volatile Hydrocarbons	41.93	49.50
Sulphur	0.49	0.30
Ash	3.88	5.88

Calorific value of mixed sample 14,300 B.T.U.s Compare these with two typical analyses give below of the best Maitland (Australian) coal, and it will be seen what a marked similarity there is in the composite of the seams.

Maitland (Australian) Coal.
Moisture	1.27 percent,	2.36 per cent.
Volatile Hydrocarbons	43.14 p.c.	41.72 per cent
Fixed carbon	49.91 p.c	51.50 per cent
Sulphur	1.00pc	0.77 per cent
Ash	4.98 p.c.	4.35 per cent.

Incidentally it may be mentioned that, owing to the conservatism and prejudice of users, it was for many years next to impossible to sell Maitland Coal. Now, however, its merit is fully recognized, and no other Australian coal can compete with it on equal terms, either as a gas, household, or steam coal. Being only 40 feet below the one above, it will not be possible to work the lower seam until sections of the upper have been worked out, and the roof allowed to fall. This will not be for twelve months yet. Ventilation. - Up to the present ventilation by natural means has been quite satisfactory; but the workings are extending, and it will soon be necessary to install a ventilating fan. The “ fan drift” is being driven, and we have an electrically driven fan ready for installation at the right moment. Pumping. - Very little pumping has been required until now, but a fairly large pump will be necessary in the near future. As with the fan, we have the requisite unit in readiness to be set up. Surface. - Much has been done in the way of erecting plant and buildings, excavating sites for machinery, cutting drains, filling swamps etc. Power House. - Excavation for the site has been finished, concrete foundations put in, and the generating sets erected. The brick building to cover the sets is well on the way to completion. Boilers and Boiler House - All the necessary excavations have been taken out, foundations finished, and the Babcock and Wilcox boiler and chain gate stoker put together. Bricking the boilers, making steam connections, erecting the covering buildings, and putting up the steel chimney are proceeding. Workshop- A small workshop has been built and equipped with a lathe and radial drill. Ordinary repairs can now be effected on the spot, and this is proving a great convenience. Electric Lighting. -The lighting set has run smoothly during the year and has been of great assistance for filling coal and loading the steamers at night. Wharf. - The new wharf, 256 feet long, and the approach thereto are finished. Our chartered steamers, which are 200 feet long, now have no difficulty in coming along side, and the time of loading has been cut down to one half. Coal Loading Bin. - An excavation has been made in the hillside, near the screens to accommodate a coal box with the capacity of 3,500 tons. Erection of the box itself has not yet started, but the bulk of the heavy timber necessary for its construction is on the ground. Hospital. - The new hospital building capable of accommodating 30 patients is finished, and will be a great improvement on the old arrangement. Bungalows. Two additional bungalows, for the European staff, making four in all were completed and occupied during the year. Another is at present under construction. Coolie Lines. - Three more large coolie lines have been put up, additions and improvements made to existing lines, and a number of small houses built for kranis and kapalas. Health and accidents- The health of all employees has been good. There were no fatal or serious accidents, and even minor accidents were very rare. The staff. - Members of the staff worked hard and well during the year and their efforts have been much appreciated.

The Straits Times, 28 April 1923, Page 8  0. Our special account of the annual meeting of Malayan Collieries. Ltd. is unavoidably held over until Monday's issue. (18 words)

The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser (1884-1942), 28 April 1923, Page 7 MALAYAN COLLIERIES. 0. COMPETITION AND PROGRESS. (From Our Own Correspondent). Kuala Lumpur, Apr. 27. Mr. J. A. Russell presided over the meeting of the Malayan Collieries. . He mentioned that the company had recently been approached by certain competitors, proposing an agreement covering the whole coal-trade of the Straits, F.M.S., on their agreeing to keep out of Hong Kong and Manila, otherwise courting an intensive cut-throat competition. A member of their staff had been questioned regarding their working costs and profit per ton, financial resources and hidden reserves. Mr. Russell declared that they were not afraid of competition, although not anxious to join a price- cutting war in Singapore. Certainly they did not fear the result, nor would they be deterred from entering other markets. They were of course, always prepared to join in any mutually beneficial honest fair-trade agreement or arrangement. 0. Reviewing the report and accounts Mr. Russell said, inter alia, that the property was in sound condition. Batu Arang today was in a higher state of efficiency than ever before, and in a position to meet any increased demand. Owing to the higher standards of efficiency they were now operating the mine on an eight hours basis, instead of sixteen, so by an extra shift alone the output would be greatly increased. With the sand stowage now introduced they had as a very minimum thirty million tons of workable coal practically in sight. He added, as a matter of interest, that the Company had contributed during the year to Government in freights, royalty and quit rents $420,624. 0. Development Of Pamoekan Bay 0. The development of Pamoekan bay was suspended from the beginning of the year, owing to labour troubles. Much labour was now being shipped back from the F.M.S. and work had been resumed late in March, since which they had steadily progressed. The work underground would during the year be sufficient to allow coal cutting machinery being employed. They had great faith in the property which they expected to be a cheaper producer than Batu Arang. 0. The Chairman referred to the keener competition experienced, but he was not afraid of this. When Pamoekan Bay was fully developed they would be able to land coal at Singapore at a cost they were confident none of their competitors would be able to touch. They were now planning to open the second seam on the property, containing coal of a higher quality than the present working. 0. Mr. Russell replied to nine written interrogations from Mr. Lim Cheng Law, stating that he did not intend to make a practice of such procedure. 0. Pointed passage with Peck. 0. Mr. F. C. Peck said he wished to raise several matters. 0. The Chairman said that Mr. Peck was out of order, unless he confined his remarks to the balance sheet and report. 0. Mr. Peck said that matters should be brought to the shareholders notice before the accounts were passed. He stated that it was common knowledge that the accounts were wrong to the extent of $1,750,000. He had been informed by Mr. Hong Guan that neither the Directors nor the Referees had ever asked him any facts with regard to the Pamoekan Bay option. 0. The Chairman again declared that the speaker was referring to a matter outside the agenda. His remedy was to call a special meeting and discuss the subject. He did not propose to reply to the remarks passed and considered that Mr. Peck was adopting a very improper method to carry on a little propaganda. 0. Mr. Peck said that he did not think he could call a special meeting, but he insisted that shareholders should know some of his facts. He knew that any proposal of his would be out voted, but he wished to make it clear that he did not agree with the report and accounts. 0. Mr. Hopson Walker asked that the Referees’ report be disclosed to shareholders, as the grounds for concealment hitherto no longer existed. 0. The Chairman declared that the grounds still held good. 0. Mr. Peck protested, as party to the suit, that he had a right to see the report. 0. The Chairman finally ruled Mr. Peck out of order. 0. The report and accounts were passed 0. 0. (704 words)

The Straits Times, 1 May 1923, Page 10 0. The Hong Guan Case. 0. Police Court Proceedings At Kuala Lumpur. 0. (From Our Own Correspondent.) Kuala Lumpur, April 30. 0. Before Mr. Pryde, in the police court this afternoon, the case was taken up in which Ng Hong Guan, who describes himself as a miner, is charged with criminally intimidating J. A. Russell, of Kuala Lumpur. 0. Mr. V.D. Knowles was counsel for the accused and Mr. E. D. Shearn, of Messrs. Pooley and Co., represented the Deputy Public Prosecutor. 0. In opening the case for the prosecution, Mr. Shearn said that in order to understand the facts it would be necessary for him to address the court at considerable length. 0. The magistrate asked whether it could not be done well enough by putting the witness in the box. 0. Mr. Shearn replied that the amount alleged concerned about $20,000 or $30,000 and the threats alleged were in connection with certain civil proceedings and in order to understand the facts of this case he thought it would be very necessary to know what those civil proceedings were. 0. Mr. Shearn then said that the design alleged against the accused was no hastily conceived one. It dated back many months. He loathed to go back to the civil actions referred to previously, but it was very necessary in this case to do so. This was the outline of those proceedings. One of them was brought by Mr. Peck against Mr. Russell. 0. Mr. Knowles: On behalf of himself and other shareholders please. 0. Mr. Shearn continuing: And the other by the accused against Russell. He wished to outline these cases as fairly as he could. In October 1920, the accused obtained an option of a mine and brought it to Russell. Russell sold the option to Malayan Collieries and Hong Guan was to get 30,000 shares in Malayan Collieries. Those were the only facts he was able to bring forward at present. It was necessary to say what each of the three parties, the accused, Peck and Russell said, because in doing so one realised the relevancy of any threat. Mr. Peck realised that Mr. Russell employed Hong Guan to obtain the option for Malayan Collieries. In the other suit Hong Guan said that he and Russell were partners in the acquisition of the option. He estimated his share of the profits of the resale at $500,000. Continuing, he said, that as matter of history, it was interesting to know, that Hong Guan commenced his suit in Singapore, in May last year. That was struck out by Mr. Justice Barret-Lennard on technical grounds. In July Mr. Peck brought his suit, which was commenced in January this year. It was then argued that Mr. Peck could not bring such an action; if anybody could it would have to be Malayan Collieries, Ltd. The judge upheld that view and struck the case out and the present position was that an appeal had been filed against that decision which was now pending. The accused filed his suit in Kuala Lumpur Supreme Court in October, last year, and in February, this year, he withdrew. It would be proved that right from the commencement of that suit, efforts had been made to come to a compromise, not only by the accused himself, but by his agents and friends. Evidence would be given to show that Mr. Russell refused to settle and come to a compromise, as the claim made by the accused was a ridiculous one. Besides the accused a number of other people were interested in the suit. One fact he must bring out lay considerable stress on related to a letter, dated February 8, 1921. He had the original of that letter written by Hong Guan to Mr. Russell, and it related to a settling up after the deal had been put through; but during the course of the litigation a different version of the letter had come into existence. It was by reason of this inaccurate copy that the accused was able to maintain his case. It had very direct influence in fact. The real letter did not refer to any partnership between Russell and Hong Guan, but the other did. Mr. Sanders, the accused lawyer, however, had doubts about that letter and served notices on the defendant to produce his documents. The original was then shown. Having seen the original Mr. Sanders had only one course. He wanted to call Mr. Sanders to give evidence in this case but as Mr. Sanders had been acting for the accused in a professional capacity he was not going to do so although he was quite prepared to call him if the court so desired. Mr. Sanders, as he said before, had only one thing to tell his client and that was that he could not go on with the suit. The accused was in a very difficult position. He had received considerable support on the face of that incorrect copy of the letter alleging a partnership. After receiving the advice of his lawyer, the accused came to see Russell who agreed to give him an interview. The interview took place on January 5. He asked Russell for a sum of money which he stated to be $30,000. He was not granted that sum but in order to get it he went to extreme lengths. The accused was an acquaintance of H. R. Legge, who had given him (Mr. Shearn) a great deal of information about Hong Guan, but no written statement. He believed Legge had been summoned by the defence, but could not be present owing to indisposition. Whether he was a witness here or not he would have to figure in the case. He was one of the people who, in November, approached Mr. Russell with the idea of settling the case. He approached the subject in a round about manner. To begin with he brought a mining proposition and brought the conversation round bit by bit to the suit. It was through him that the fact of the incorrect copy of the letter referred to was ascertained. When he suggested the payment of $200,000 to come as a settlement, Mr. Russell was surprised. There were several other interviews later between Legge and Russell. One was on December 11 when Legge showed the copy of that letter of February 8. On seeing it, Russell said he had never received such a letter. Russell had another interview on December 7, with the father of the accused, Ng Sung Teck. In the course of conversation, Ng Sung Teck told Russell that his son was a source of considerable worry to him. He mentioned the litigation. Later the accused came to Russell again and wanted a sum of money which Russell refused to give; but said that he would go to his firm in China and see what he could do there. He offered to give him $500 passage money as accused said he was very hard pressed by creditors. 0. Having referred to several other interviews, Mr. Shearn said that on February 1, the accused came to Kuala Lumpur and telephoned Mr. Russell asking for an interview. Russell consented to give it at the same time as making arrangements to have the discussion taken down by somebody in another room. A note of what transpired would be produced in court, as taken down by a third party. Another interview was granted to the accused on February 9 at Kuala Lumpur, when Russell took ample steps to take down the record of the proceedings. During the course of the interview several documents were handed by the accused to Mr. Russell. He tried to impress upon Mr. Russell how wise it would be to come to a settlement. 0. Mr. Shearn having concluded Mr. Russell went into the witness box. 0. The court rose after 5 pm and the case will be continued tomorrow at 2pm. 0. 0. (1333 words)

The Straits Times, 1 May 1923, Page 10 . Malayan Collieries. Annual General Meeting At Kuala Lumpur. (From Our Own Correspondent.) Kuala Lumpur, April 27. The ninth annual general meeting of shareholders in Malayan Collieries, Ltd., was held at the offices of the secretaries, Messrs. J. A. Russell and Co., Hongkong and Shanghai Bank buildings, Kuala Lumpur, at noon to-day. There were present: Messrs. J. A. Russell (in the chair), A. Grant Mackie, Robert P. Brash, Adolf Alois Henggeler, (directors) J. Fraser Brown, F. C. Peck, H. Hopson Walker, Russell F. Grey. John Hands. W. A. Smith, E. Bartholomew, J. Bligh Orr and W. H. Martin. After the notice convening the meeting had been read by a representative of the secretaries, The Chairman’s Review. The Chairman said: - Gentlemen, I will assume that you will give me permission to take the report and accounts before you as read, and I will proceed to make a few explanatory remarks upon the balance sheet. The accounts are this year presented in an amalgamated form, covering both properties and are more condensed. We are advised that the amalgamation is the more correct method of showing the company’s financial position, instead of dividing its assets and liabilities up into two balance sheets, and also giving some figures in dollars and some in guilders, as was done last year. The actual position of the company is now shown at a glance. The condensation is not so much made for the sake of extra conciseness, but with the object of not giving away more trade figures than we are obliged to do to our competitors; some of whom by the way, also hold shares in the company. We have within the last month been approached by certain of our competitors with regard to fixing up an agreement covering the whole coal trade of the Straits Settlements and the Federated Malay States, and of agreeing moreover to keep out of Hongkong and Manila, or of laying ourselves open to an intensive and cut-throat competition. Certain questions were also recently put to one of our staff as to our present and our probable future working costs, our profit per ton, our financial resources, and whether or not we had any hidden reserves. I may, therefore, here perhaps remark that we are not afraid of competition, and, although we are not anxious to join in a price cutting war in Singapore, we certainly do not fear the result, nor shall we be deterred from entering other markets. We are, of course, always prepared to join in any mutually beneficial, honest and fair trade agreement or arrangement; but these particular competitors of ours must realise that it is of no use their attempting to threaten us nor, I may add, of their attempting to obtain inside information from our staff or from other sources regarding our internal economy. The Company’s Finances. The amount under the heading sundry creditors of $237,830.44 is about $8,000 more than the total of the corresponding accounts appearing in the last issued balance sheet. This small increase is not due to the company having needed or obtained any greater credit facilities. On December 31 the company becomes liable for payments which cannot be settled until the following accounting period, and our liabilities are consequently always at the end of the year temporarily increased. The account includes a comparatively small provision for contingent liability, with the exception of which sum the whole amount appearing as due to sundry creditors has since been discharged. At the end of the year several dividend warrants posted to shareholders in Europe had not been cashed by their owners, which fact accounts for the liability standing under the heading of unpaid dividends. These warrants have since been practically all presented and paid. Mine amortization has been automatically increased by reserving the sum of $37,500, and the total of this reserve and the general reserve now stands at $1,243,750. The reserve for staff leave and passages has been increased by a further $10,000, bringing this reserve up to $25,000- a figure more in keeping with the company’s actual liability on this score. Leaving alone for the moment the item “profit and loss”, and turning to the asset side of the balance sheet, I have nothing very much to say, except to remark that as a large proportion of renewals is paid out of revenue, and rapidly wearing plant is treated as stores consumed in operating the mines, the amount written off assets in depreciation of railway sidings, buildings, plant and machinery, and the steamer Pamoekang, of $121,956, is quite a safe figure. Our high priced material having by now mostly been consumed, nothing this year has had to be written off stores, which account now stands at $197.152.14. Development increased by a further $227,269.02, and the total of this account is now $499,472.44. You will be recommended, however, to write off a further $200,000 from this sum, which will mean that development will only stand in the company’s books at an increase of $27.269.02 over last year. Coal stocks stand at $83,137.55, and have since all been sold at the value estimated, although a parcel of smalls comprising part of these stocks has not yet been delivered to the buyer. Sundry Debtors at $417,984.37 shows a reduction compared with the figure in the previous balance sheet. Against these debts the sum of $60,000 has been allowed, which is $10,000 more than reserved for this purpose last year. Deducting this reserve sundry debtors is therefore only rated in the balance sheet as being worth $357,984.37 I may say that a reserve of $60,000 for bad debts is ample, and it is not anticipated that anything like this amount will be required. For the year under review the bad debts actually incurred and written off were $15,720.27, so a provision of $60,000 for our existing outstandings should more than cover all contingencies. Profit and Loss. Looking now at the profit and loss account, you will see that the cost of operating our mines during the year was $1,613.249.71 but that of this amount the sum of $227,269.02 was, as I have already said, spent on development, leaving $1,385,980.69 as the actual cost of winning the coal. We paid a further sum of $473.483.23 in transporting the coal and $118,106.93 in royalties. We also gave rebates of $62,306.82 upon certain long contracts entered into with us during the period of high prices. Our total revenue was just short of three million dollars, or to be exact, the sum of $2,999,923.59, and our nett profit was $764,869.65. To this profit has to be added the balance brought forward from the previous account of $148,907.98, making a total of $913,777.63. Out of this latter amount the company has already paid two interim dividends of 5 per cent. each, absorbing $310,000, and leaving available a balance $603,777.63. Your directors recommend the distribution of a final dividend of 7 ½ per cent., making a total of 17 ½ per cent for the year, which final distribution will absorb $232.500, and that the sum of $200,000 be written off development. The auditors have rendered their account for $2,000, and you are requested to sanction a sum of $12,000 as directors’ fees. These appropriations will leave a balance of $157,277.63, which amount subject to the payment of a bonus to the staff, your directors recommend should be carried forward to the 1923 account. The amount of the staff bonus your directors ask you to leave to them to fix in consultation with the general manager Mr. Barr; this method of granting and distributing a bonus having hitherto been the practice of the company, and having worked well. I do not think there is much more for me to add, except perhaps to say that your property is in a sound condition. The Batu Arang property is to-day in a better state of efficiency than it has ever been before, and is in a position to turn out much larger daily supplies of coal as soon as there is an increase in demand. Owing to a higher standard of efficiency the mine is being operated at present upon an eight hour basis, instead of a sixteen hour one as was formerly the case, so that in the matter of working an extra shift there is alone ample scope for greatly increasing the output. All new workings are now being sand filled, while the old exhausted workings are also being hydraulically stowed, so that in time the whole of the space from which coal has been extracted will be entirely replaced with sand. This replacement will render it possible to work the pillars of coal left behind, and thus will more than double the life of the property and the extractable quantity of its coal contents. With sand stowage we now have at a very minimum thirty million tons of workable coal practically in sight. Due mainly to sand filling we have also been able to cope with the spontaneous fires which formerly were so great a danger to the mine. With the present system we have control so well in hand that the possibility of having permanently to abandon any large area of the workings no longer exists, and no fire could now do more than temporarily inconvenience us. Improvements, even if small ones, in methods of mining, in the system of operations and if in organization generally, are always being effected, and progress is noticeable each year. At the present moment, for instance, we are putting in a further half mile of sidings for operating sand filling, which addition will relieve the congestion on our existing coal sidings, and also enable our locomotives to be used more economically and to greater advantage. As a matter of interest, I might add that the company contributed during the year to the F.M.S. Government in Railway freights, royalties, quit rents, etc., a total sum of $420,624.61. Progress at the Colliery Development at Pamoekan Bay Colliery, owing to labour troubles, was temporality suspended at the beginning of the year; and a great deal of the labour was shipped back to the F.M.S. Work was resumed in late March, and has steadily progressed ever since. The erection of our plant, and the power and boiler houses, and the installation of coal cutters will be finished during the current year, and our underground workings will be sufficiently advanced to allow of coal cutting machinery being employed, when we shall pass from development work almost pure and simple to what may be considered as proper coal mining. Our coal loading plant will probably not be fully completed until about Christmas, but we have already reduced the length of time taken to load our present colliers from seven to five, and from five to two and half days; and when the work in hand is done we shall be able to load them in sixteen hours. We are now negotiating the charter of a third collier, and hope by the end of the year to acquire still another. We have great faith in the property, which is one we expect eventually to be a larger and cheaper producer than Batu Arang. The coal that we are at present marketing is meeting with a good deal of competition. Since we commenced putting bigger and regular supplies of Pamoekan Bay coal upon the Singapore market, the price of our principal competitive coal has been reduced from $15.50 to $13.25 a ton ex ship, a reduction which is a considerable one. We are however, not afraid of competition, for when Pamoekan Bay is fully developed it will be able to land coal in Singapore at a cost which we are confident none of our competitors will be able to touch. We are now planning to open up the second seam upon the property, which seam contains coal of considerably higher quality than that at present being worked. This seam has hitherto been untouched, but we are arriving at a position where we can get at it, and within about a year’s time from now we hope to be able to place quantities of this superior class fuel upon the market. I cannot conclude without referring to the services of your general manager, Mr. James Barr, and his staff. The directors desire to record their appreciation of the general manager’s valuable work for the company, while he has already in his reports referred to the whole-hearted co-operation which he has received from those under him. The company can congratulate itself upon having the services of so good a general manager. I now beg formerly to move that the report of the directors produced, together with the statement of the company’s accounts as at December 31, 1922, duly audited, be now received and approved, and adopted, which motion I will ask Mr. A. A. Henggeler to second; but before putting it to the meeting I shall first endeavour to answer to the best of my ability, and If I can do so, questions which shareholders present may care to put upon the report and accounts. A Shareholder’s Questions. I have as matter of fact received from Mr. Lim Cheng Law a letter addressed to me personally asking me to reply at this meeting to nine questions. This is a very unusual request and although I will on this occasion reply to them I do not intend making a practice of this in the future. The questions and answers are: - Question 1. - What was the reason for the increase of liabilities under sundry creditors, viz., from $191,767.51 in 1921 to $237.830.44 in 1922 (an increase of about $46,000) as compared with the total amount for the previous year? I suppose this item includes trade, bills payable and advances to mine contactors and also for wages, if so, please give the figures under each item, as was done in previous years. Answer. - The increase is not $46,000 but a little over $8,000, and I have already referred to this in my speech. The amount does not include the item of bills payable appearing in the previous years accounts because we are now meeting all drafts upon presentation. It also of course does not include advances to mine contractors, for these are included in the account sundry debtors, and not as Mr. Lim Cheng Law appears to think under sundry creditors. It does, however, include trade accounts and wages, and other accrued liabilities. Question 2. - Cash at banks, in transit or in hand $201.841.54 shewn in the balance sheet under assets, should be shewn separately and not in a lump sum and why not state amounts standing at banks, on fixed deposit, on current account and also in hand as was done during previous years. Answer. - There is no need to enter such details. The amount in cash stated and certified by the Auditors as such is shown in one amount for the sake of brevity. In order to satisfy Mr. Lim Cheng Law’s curiosity, I will add, however, that the total was made up as follows: - On Deposit. - Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, K.L. $115,000 current A/c. Hongkong and Shanghai Bank K.L.$56,201.96, dividend A/c. Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, K.L. $3,383.24, in hand at head office and at Batu Arang, $617.94, in hand at Pamoekan Bay, guilders 5,742.84, in transit to Pamoekan Bay, guilders 25,000 with the company’s agent in Java, guilders 5,003.23. The last three items are equivalent to $26.638.40. Question 3. - Why has not such an important though usual item of current expenses including salaries, bonuses, commission and other charges been shewn in the profit and loss account for the year ending December 31, 1922? Answer. - These details were not shown in last year’s account. Salaries are of course part of the working costs. The amount of the staff bonus is shown as an appropriation from profit and does appear. Question 4. - What was the amount incurred by the company for legal expenses in the suit of Mr. F. C. Peck against the company? Answer. - This case being still sub-judice owing to Mr. Peck having lodged an appeal the company’s lawyers have not yet rendered their account. Question 5. - Does the property known as Pamoekan Bay Mine really form a portion of the company’s assets, and if so, why should not the documents of title be in the name of Malayan Collieries, Limited, up to now or when will the transfer be made to the company? Answer. - The Pamoekan Bay Mine does form a portion of the company’s assets. In accordance with Dutch law the titles are registered in the name of Dutch company, the Mijnbouw en Handel Maatschappij Goenoeng Batoe Besar, the whole of whose capital is in turn held by Malayan Collieries, Ltd., and the whole of the share certificates of which Dutch company are in the unencumbered possession of Malayan Collieries, Ltd. The titles will not and cannot be transferred to the name of Malayan Collieries, Ltd. Question 6. - Under the heading of assets $197,152.14 for stores. Is this the cost price or was any margin made for depreciation? Answer. - I have already mentioned this question of depreciation of stores in my speech. The stores are taken at cost at Batu Arang less amounts formerly depreciated and at landed value at Pamoekan Bay less amounts formerly depreciated. Question 7. - Are the managing agents and secretaries paid any salary or remuneration or have they been charging the company any commission for the sale of coal or purchase of stores for the company, as no items of salaries or commission have been shewn in the account. Answer. - The secretaries and managing agents’ fee is as in the previous year $2,500 per mensum. They do not receive any commission either on purchases or on sales. Question 8. - The directors propose to write off $200,000 for mine development account. How much is for Batu Arang and how much is for premia, and survey fees on mining leases? Answer. - As during the year under review development was confined to the Pamoekan Bay Colliery, it may be said that this amount is written off the development of that mine alone. Development account naturally does not include any premia or survey fees on mining leases. Question 9. - How many meetings have been held by the directors during the year 1922 and have the directors been paid any fees for such meetings? Answer. - The Board held 10 formal meetings during the year and number of consultations and conferences and had besides a considerable amount of work to do in matters connected with Mr. Peck’s agitation and his subsequent litigation. No fees have yet been paid to the directors for the year 1922. Mr. Hengeller seconded. The motion being put to the vote was carried by a large majority. The Chairman proposed that a final dividend of 7 ½ per cent making a total of 17 ½ per cent for the year be declared forthwith. Mr. Henggeler seconded. – Carried. The directors’ remuneration of $12,000 was put to the meting and passed. Messrs. A.A. Henggeler and Chew Kam Chan, the retiring directors, were re- elected as were also the retiring auditors, Messrs. Evatt and Co. Before the meeting terminated the Chairman said he would like to pass a vote of thanks to the general manager of the company and his staff for their good work and pass a bonus, the figure to be left to the judgment of the board. Dr. Crago seconded. - Carried. A vote of thanks to the chair terminated the proceedings. 0. 0. (3299 words)

The Straits Times, 2 May 1923, Page 10 0. The Hong Guan Case. Allegations of Criminal Intimidation. 0. (From Our Own Correspondent.) Kuala Lumpur, May 1. 0. The case in which Ng Hong Guan is charged with criminally intimidating Mr. J. A. Russell was resumed to day. 0. In the course of his evidence yesterday, Mr. Russell said that he was a partner of J. A. Russell and Co., Kula Lumpur, and W.R. Loxley and Co., in Singapore and elsewhere. Hong Guan had written him the following letter dated April 27, 1922: - 227, Telok Ayer Street. Singapore, April 27, 1922. 0. Dear Mr. Russell, - I enclose herewith copy of an opinion which I have received from a firm of Singapore Solicitors in relation to our deal over the Goenoeng Batoe Besar Mine and shall be glad to hear from you thereon. 0. If I am compelled to take action I shall make a claim for 18,666 2/3 shares at the price of Dols. 20 each, as I can prove that I sold my own shares at about that price. 0. I am, however, prepared to consider a settlement, provided it is put through at once, and I should be obliged if you would let me know from you by return mail. Yours faithfully, (Sgd.)NG HONG GUAN. 0. (OPINION) 0. “ We have been asked to advise Ng Hong Guan with regard to the position between Mr. J. A. Russell and himself with reference to the Goenoeng Batoe Besar Mine acquired by Malayan Collieries Ltd. 0. “ It appears clear that Ng Hong Guan obtained from The Eastern Mining and Rubber Co., Ltd., an option, dated October 8, 1920, to acquire this property for the sum of Dols.600,000 in cash and Dols. 600,000 to be satisfied by 20,000 shares in Malayan Collieries Ltd., at the price of Dols. 30 each. This was about the price of these shares at the date of option. 0. “ We have seen a very considerable amount of correspondence between Mr. Russell and Ng Hong Guan and it is perfectly clear that they were acting together in the matter. It is also clear that the actual deposit of Dols. $50,000 was made by Mr. Russell. Ng Hong Guan alleges that as between Mr. Russell and himself he was to receive one third of the difference between the amount payable to the Eastern Mining and Rubber Co. Ltd., and the amount to be received from Malayan Collieries Ltd. Ng Hong Gaun also alleges that Mr. Russell said that the sale price to Malayan Collieries Ltd., would be Dols.1,600,000 0. “Ng Hong Guan produced the copy of an agreement, dated November 19, 1920, made between Khoo Wee Chuan and himself by which he transfers the option given to him by The Eastern Mining and Rubber Co., Ltd., to Khoo Wee Chuan on the terms set out in the agreement. The principal point is that if the option were exercised Ng Hong Guan was to receive 4,000 shares in the Malayan Collieries, Ltd. It is worth noting that on the footing of a sale price of Dols. 1,600,000 a profit would be made by the option holder of about Dols.$400,000 and 4,000 shares in Malayan Collieries Ltd., at the price then prevailing would represent approximately one third of Dols. $400,000. This seems to us to confirm Ng Hong Guan’s story to some extent. 0. “Khoo Wee Chuan exercised the option on November 24, 5 days after his agreement with Ng Hong Guan. Ng Hong Guan alleges that Khoo Wee Chuan is in the employment of Mr. Russell and that the whole transaction as regards Khoo Wee Chuan is a blind. Mr. Russell’s letters and telegrams both before and particularly after November 24, 1920, certainly suggest this may be so. 0. It is abundantly clear from documentary evidence that Ng Hong Guan actually received from Mr. Russell 8,000 shares in the Malayan Collieries, Ltd., and this suggests that Ng Hong Guan’s statement that he was to receive one-third of the profit realized on the option is correct. His agreement with Khoo Wee Chuan provides for 4,000 shares and we can think of no reason why Ng Hong Guan should receive 8,000 unless his story of the one-third profit is true. 0. “Ng Hong Guan now produces a Report of the Malayan Collieries Ltd. up to the end of the year 1921, and he claims that on the face of the report the Goenoeng Batoe Besar property was acquired by Malayan Collieries, Ltd., for the sum of Dols. 600,000 in cash and 100,000 fully paid up shares in Malayan Collieries Ltd. We presume the Dols. 600,000 was paid to Eastern Mining and Rubber Co. Ltd., and that 20,000 shares out of the 100,000 shares were also handed to the Eastern Mining and Rubber Co. Ltd., in payment of the purchase price. This, he says, leaves a profit to the option holder of 80,000 fully paid up shares in Malayan Collieries Ltd. and he claims that he is entitled to one-third of this, amounting to 26,666 2/3 shares. Against this he has already received 8,000 shares, and he asks us to advise whether he is entitled to claim from Mr. Russell the balance of 18,662/3 shares, together with the dividend paid in January last. 0. “ It is very important to inspect the file of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies in Kuala Lumpur in order to ascertain what agreement was made for the issue of shares for a consideration other than cash and if it should appear that 80,000 shares were allotted to Khoo Wee Chuan, Ng Hong Guan and Mr. Russell or to nominees of Khoo Wee Chuan or Mr. Russell we think it would be very strong evidence of the correctness of Ng Hong Guan’s story that we should recommend him to take action for a partnership account on the footing that they were partners in the profit to made from the option given by The Eastern Mining and Rubber Co., Ltd. 0. “Singapore, April 27, 1922.” 0. He did not reply to that letter as he considered the complaint a preposterous one. Subsequent to that a writ was issued on him in Singapore. This was in respect of profits alleged by a partnership. After that was issued he got the following letter dated May 20, 1922: - COPY 6, Cavanagh Road, Singapore. May 20, 1922. Hock Liong Tin Mining to J. A. Russell, Kuala Lumpur. Dear Mr. Russell, _ I hope you will treat my letter without prejudice and confidential. Mr. Ng Hong Guan has come to see me several times relating to me his private affairs between you and him. Regarding correspondence in the local papers, Mr. Ng Hong Guan is no way concerned anything and I suggest a private settlement is more advisable if you will send Chong Keng Boon to see me personally at my above address. Yours truly, TAN KIM WAH. Subsequently the writ was set aside by Mr. Justice Barrett-Lennard and a plaint was filed in Kuala Lumpur by Hong Guan. He knew R. H. Legge. After the issue of the writ by Hong Guan he saw Legge in his office at Kuala Lumpur. This must have been just before November 23, 1922. Legge came to see him with reference to a coal concession in Pontianak. The name of the owner was Tan Kim Wah, the same person who wrote the letter to him. Later Legge discussed Hong Guan’s case against him. He said Hong Guan had a strong case and it would be to his (Russell’s) benefit if he came to a settlement out of court. Hong Guan would actually accept 40 per cent of the claim i.e. $200,000. He (witness) said he would not settle as he had got advice from his lawyers that it would be to his benefit if the action proceeded. Legge however said he did not see how it could be to witnesses’ interest to proceed because Hong Guan had written a letter to witness on February 8 in which he alleged a partnership, and proved conclusively that there was a partnership existing between them with reference to the Pamoekan Bay Colliery. At a later date, he saw a copy of the letter referred to by Legge. It was an incorrect copy. Later he had two or three interviews with Legge in which Legge gave him further particulars about the Pontianak coal concession and invariably he also mentioned Ng Hong Guan’s case. He always tried to settle the case but witness would not agree. Legge did not mention any other than $200,000, but from what he said witness gathered that the accused was willing to reduce his figure considerably. He knew Ng Sung Teck, father of the accused. About that time he had an interview with him. That was on December 7, 1922. He made the following notes soon after Ng Sung Teck left the office: - (Copy) Ng Sam Teck 7-12-22 NST called (He was in the Office part of the morning and all afternoon, but I would not see him until 4.30). He said he was on a casual visit to see friends, had not seen me for 2 years, so came to pay respects!!! (Was very effusive). Said N.H.G. caused him much trouble, and was a bad son to him (put hau), and had ruined (sun hai phah phai) his old father by his dishonesty (hiau sim) N.H.G. had bad friends. Peck always pressing N.H.G. for statement of evidence (ho i sak si ji ka i tsoe kan cheng). N.H.G. refused but was very vicious (lam sam sam), could not tell what N.H.G. would do (bo thang khau) as was capable of doing anything (ka si ka oah!!) N.H.G. was a real bad son. I expressed sympathy and sent him away. He was very shaky.” “JAR 7-1-22” He knew notice had been given to produce certain documents in his case with Hong Gaun. The notice served in the Supreme Court required him to produce a letter from the plaintiff to defendant dated February 8 1921, and the document of transfer under which Khoo Wee Chuan transferred to J. A. Russell and Co. the option of October 8, 1920. These were produced on December 23. Witness was at Port Dickson for Christmas. While there he got a letter from Legge and later he also got a communication from Legge by telephone. Legge requested an interview and witness granted it. Legge said he wanted to know whether the witness would go in for a Wolfram proposition and wanted to know whether witness intended proceeding with the matter as it was time he made some money. Witness said that unless he got a free option for four months he could not proceed. Legge told him he had been offered 5 per cent commission by Hong Gaun upon any amount he was able to obtain from witness by way of settling the case. He also said he had wasted considerable time and incurred much expenditure for the past two months endeavoring to effect a settlement. He now realised that it was hopeless, and it was therefore imperative for him (Legge) to revert his energies to some other matter and make some money speedily. Witness came to Kuala Lumpur on January 2. Legge came to see him again and wanted to know if witness was prepared to give Hong Guan an interview because Hong Guan was going to withdraw the civil suit against witness. Hong Guan wanted to come round and say he was sorry for having brought it. Witness said he would see Hong Gaun the following day, and did see him. On that occasion Hong Guan apologised having bought the suit against him. He said he had been misled by his so-called friends. He said that having inspected the documents his solicitors were of the opinion that he could not go on with the suit. He also said it would be difficult for him to withdraw as he owed a lot of money in Singapore, and his creditors were relying on him owing to that case. Further, Hong Guan told witness that he feared he would soon have difficulty with his father. As soon as he withdrew it would be necessary for him to leave the country and start again in some fresh field where he would like to have an opportunity of making some money. He said he wanted money to go to China and that he did not have his passage money. He knew witness had branches in China and wanted witness to guarantee work if he went to China. Witness said that as accused was withdrawing the case it would be good for him to start again, and he would pay his passage. Witness offered to give him a ticket, whereupon accused said he wanted to take his wife and it was impossible for him to land in Hong Kong without a dollar in his pocket. Witness said he would give him a letter of introduction to his firm in China and $500. Hong Guan said that his father was an old man and very obstinate and unless his father was convinced that there was a prospect of his being able to do something in China he feared his father would not allow him to get away at once. It was very necessary for the accused to go immediately before or immediately after his case was withdrawn. He asked witness to do what he could to put him in a position to convince his father and get him to let him go and, that he was not merely bolting, but seriously intending to start work and remit money back to his father. Continuing, Mr. Russell said that on January 6 he had another interview with Hong Guan. At this interview witness showed accused some particulars about properties in China. Accused having taken notes assured him that those would convince his father. He requested witness to get his firm in China to give him a sum of $600 per month during the time he held himself available for them and worked for them. He asked witness to induce Loxley and Co, Hong Kong to give him a loan, but witness said he could not do that. He went to Singapore on January 8, and while at his office he saw the accused ‘s father who told him his son was in a desperate position and asked witness to let his son have a loan of $30.000 or $40.000. Witness gave him the same reply that he had given his son. Witness, however, told him that his son would be paid while he worked with his firm in China if he was worth giving work to, but could not guarantee anything. He would give $500 passage money. Accused father was exceedingly downcast, said it meant ruin for the family, and almost burst into tears. Witness was in Kuala Lumpur again on the 10th and saw Legge in his office on that day. He came round to ask witness whether he would make Hong Guan an allowance of $20,000, and pointed out that through Hong Guan witness had formerly made a considerable profit. Witness was not asking Hong Guan to withdraw the case and that the utmost extent he would be $500 for Hong Guan to make a fresh start somewhere else. Continuing, witness said that he saw Hong Guan again sometime later, about the 20th, when he said that his father would not let him withdraw the case, because it meant financial ruin to the family, and showed witness the following telegram dated January 10, 1923, addressed to Ng Hong Guan: “Must obtain about forty thousand otherwise impossible to leave Singapore I prefer all ruin come back if not agree” It was signed Ng Sam Tock. He also said that Mr. Peck had been pressing him recently to give him a statement in the connection with the case Mr. Peck was bringing against witness and Malayan Collieries. Peck had told him that the whole case depended upon his evidence. He had so far refused to give Mr. Peck a statement, but he believed Mr. Peck was getting statements from others. He asked witness to see the great difficulties he was in and assist him. Yesterday’s Proceedings (From Our Own Correspondent) Kuala Lumpur, May 1 Continuing his evidence this morning Mr. Russell said that after the January 20 interview with Hong Gaun, Legge came to see him in his office. He then handed witness a letter addressed to Legge and written by Hong Guan. Mr. Shearn: Is that the letter? - Yes (Copy) Strictly private. My dear Mr. Legge, - After interviewing my father who is in a better mood, I have since given him my full explanations. Now there are several points which I would like to discuss with you which, I hope, you will believe it. Firstly, is payment. Can you try and get from Jar Dols. $30,000 payable Dols. $20,000 in K.L. and balance in H.K. (i.e. $10,000 Dols.) I think you had better use your discretion and bring the figure up to the margin. You are speaking always that I have suspicion on you, but I am not like that, in fact I am very annoyed with Jar. Not only you have used your best wits to settle this matter for me but to which my future depends entirely on you, viz: - 4. To be my witness of not compromising with Jar. 5. 2. To speak to nobody about my whereabouts and with whom I am working. 6. To clear my way and future success. When I write these things, you will, no doubt, recollect whether I have no brain to have any suspicion on you. Think what I have done from the start when you interviewed Jar. I pin my faith and success on you. If I can take from that point of view, why ½ way. Surely I am not going to be stopped half way. God only knows. You know you practically know my affairs from A to Z, and you are, no doubt, the most suitable man to settle this affair having come to understand both parties’ views. Now clear away from your mind that suspicion and forget all about it, and take yourself to be in my place, as if myself is making the negotiation. I would like you very much to settle on the best terms, although to show good faith I have given to S. a letter authorising settlement of Dols $30,000. Use your best wits to get as much as you can. Surely you can do it, if you take my interest solemnly. Conditions: - 1.Settlement about say, Dols $30,000. 2. My work in H. K.400 to be confirmed. 3. Ula Pacca Corp reorganise it 4. Interest in all undertakings in China. 5. Etc. Please try Jar again and bring him round with your excellent whips. I am entirely depending on you, and certainly you would not like to see self and family ruined. You may think that there will be no benefit to you in case of a settlement, but though I may not repay you for work what you have done, but hope to be able to do it one of these days so long as I am living. Kindly let me know your ways and as soon as everything is settled wire me and I will go down and settle up. This is my last word. Re the Dols 20,000 you mentioned the other day. It is really impossible, but if you can induce Jar say about Dols 30,000, and I will induce the old man or even for Dols 27,000. Please do your best for me, I leave everything entirely to your discretion. God only knows, and if I cannot do anything to help you, God will bless you so long as we live. I am very anxious for a reply after you have been to see Jar, and will write to you further on the subject. I am expecting to get away day after day, and hope you will help my poor friends continually during my absence and also during your stay in Singapore. Therefore depending on you. Best wishes for wife. Do write to me, I am leaving everything to you, and God will guide you in your undertaking. Yours sincerely NG HONG GUAN P.S. Remember time is coming near for next month’s fixture. So allow me to get away soon, as time is critical. The court rose after 5pm. Mr. Russell’s evidence occupying the whole day. The case will be continued again tomorrow. 0. 0. 0. 0. (3462 words)

The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser 2 May 1923 page 6 ALLEGED CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION FOOC KL May 1 The preliminary hearing of the charge of criminal intimidation brought by Mr. J. A. Russell against Mr. Ng Hong Guan has opened and is expected to continue all week. Mr. E.D. Shearn prosecutes and Mr. V.D. Knowles defends. Mr. Shearn ? his opening statement referred at length to the two Malayan Collieries cases ? particularly to Mr. Hong Guan’s claim of ? third share amounting to $500,000 of Mr. Russell’s profit on the Pamoekan ? option. He referred to interviews in which Mr. Hong Guan is alleged to have made demands accompanied by threats which were heard by concealed persons. Mr. Russell began to give evidence.

MALAYAN COLLIERIES MEETING. [Letters] The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser (1884-1942), 2 May 1923, Page 7 MALAYAN COLLIERIES MEETING. To the Editor, Sir, - Kindly allow me to correct the two most important inaccuracies in your report of the Malayan Collieries meeting. I did not make the improper statement that "it was common, knowledge that the accounts were wrong to the extent of $1,750,000." What I said was: “It is common knowledge that I hold these accounts are wrong” etc. Further I did not say that Mr. Hong Guan had informed me “ that neither the Directors nor the Referees had ever asked him any facts with regard to the Pamoekan Bay option”. The words I used were: “neither the Directors, other than Mr. Russell, nor the Referees” etc. FREDK. C. PECK. Kuala Lumpur, April 29. (Mr. Peck addressed a similar letter to the Malay Mail, from whose representative we received our wired report. The Editor of the Malay Mail states: We have gone categorically through the alleged inaccuracies in our report with our representative at the meeting (an expert shorthand writer of many years experience). He maintains that his report is correct.)(178 words)

The Straits Times, 3 May 1923, Page 10 0. The Hong Guan Case. Sensational Evidence at Kuala Lumpur. 0. (From Our Own Correspondent.) 0. Kuala Lumpur, May 2. 0. The case in which Ng Hong Guan is charged with criminally intimidating Mr. J. A. Russell was resumed to day. Continuing his evidence, Mr. Russell said that after Legge had handed him the letter (which appeared in yesterday’s issue) Legge made a statement to witness in regard of it. At the same interview Legge showed witness a telegram and another letter, the a letter being from R. C. Chee to Legge and dated January 10, 1923. It stated: “Something most sad and unexpected happened early this morning. Dr. Sam Teek was found to have taken 2 packets of narcotic poison. Luckily after all efforts he was brought round, but at present remains critical. I am deeply moved to see the old man so grieved and worried. Hong Guan is too irresponsible. I have no name for him. But for the present please, for God’s sake, do not tell him. Urge him to delay not an hour to come back if settlement is hopeless. But if there is any chance, please do your best for the pitiable old man if not for the silly fool H.G.” Legge also gave witness certain information with regard to the civil suit which Ng Hong Guan was bringing against witness. He asked Legge to get more definite information as he said it would be useful in cross-examination in the civil suit Hong Guan v. witness. Legge then pointed out to witness that he (Legge) was not a rich man and wanted his expenses paid. Witness told him he would pay his expenses and with regard to his time and trouble witness would see that he did not lose. He paid Legge about $300. He could give the court the nature of the work Legge was to do for him. On January 25, 1923, Dr. Chee told witness that he had come to see him on behalf of the accused and accused’s father, saying he was a great friend of the family, and at the time was supporting them financially. He appealed to witness to give them what they asked for; that although the accused and his father both knew that the suit against witness could not succeed, he begged witness to remember that unless he granted the request the accused might not be very well disposed towards him. He also reminded witness that the suit Mr. Peck was bringing against him involved a sum of about $2,000,000 and that the accused would be the principal witness in that case and on his evidence depended the whole of Mr. Peck’s case. He further went on to say that he was not threatening witness, but witness ought to know how very responsible a man Hong Guan was, and he feared that unless witness was able to give him (the accused) what he asked for, he might give such evidence to Mr. Peck as would suit Mr. Pecks case, and, moreover, if witness would not pay the accused, during the bearing of the case, he might instruct his solicitor to cross examine witness at the direction of Mr. Peck in such a way as to assist Mr. Peck in his own case. He also gave other information about Hong Guan. He explained that Hong Guan could not withdraw his case, and finally asked witness to consider whether he could not give Hong Guan what he asked for. 0. Mr. Knowles:- I don’t object to all this your worship, but none of this is evidence against my client. 0. Mr. Shearn: -We are giving now the statement made by Dr. Chee, who comes on behalf of Hong Gaun. In these cases of extortion or criminal intimidation it is only by indirect means that one gets to the actual offence. When the evidence is before your worship you will see that Dr. Chee did come on behalf of the accused and accused did not deny it. I do not however intend to call Dr. Chee as a witness. 0. Mr. Knowles: - We thought it was alleged, that Legge was our agent your worship, but we know now from January 20 he was the direct agent of Russell. 0. Mr. Shearn (to witness). - Did Dr. Chee mention Legge? - Yes, he said he knew Legge had seen me, but that Legge was no longer the representative of Hong Guan; that Legge was an untrustworthy person and to have nothing to do with him. 0. Mr. Russell (continuing). - I told Dr. Chee that I had always been advised that no evidence can be called in the case Mr. Peck was bringing and therefore it was very unlikely that Hong Guan’s evidence would be required, and even if it was required I was indifferent as to what false evidence Hong Guan might chose to give because I was prepared by means of independent evidence to disprove any lies he might say. I said that I was annoyed with these attempts by Hong Guan to use as a lever his case against me in order to extort money from me, and I would not even pay his passage money to China and see that Loxley and Co., did not help him at all in China. On January 29, a certain Mr. Coomarasamy came to see me to settle the matter. 0. Mr. Shearn. - Did you ask him to come? - No. On February 1, accused rang me up on the telephone at 9.30 a.m. and asked whether I would see him. I said I would see him in half an hour. 0. Witness telephoned to his solicitors and spoke to his secretary Mr. Brown and arranged for him to take a note of the interview from an unobserved position in the board room. He then described how the rooms were arranged. 0. Witness produced a written record of what occurred. 0. At the interview, witness continued, I told Hong Guan what I had decided to do, so it was useless continually coming round to see me. Hong Guan said that unfortunately he could not withdraw his case unless he got $30,000 or $40,000 as, if he withdrew it, his creditors would come down on him. Moreover, his father would not let him go away unless he got some money. I repeated to him that several times he told me he was sorry for bringing his suit, but that the case still remained not withdrawn. He then mentioned Mr. Peck who he said was bothering him to give him a statement. I again asked him for more reasons why he should have a loan. Hong Guan said that he was not threatening me, but at the same time he pointed out that that it was within his power to make things bad for me if he liked. He said that if his case went on, although he might not win it, he could tell his lawyer to cross-examine me in such a way as to help Mr. Peck, and also that he could say whatever he chose to Mr. Peck in regard to the manner he obtained the original option. I said that his friend, Dr. Chee, had already had something like that to say to me, and that it all seemed to me nothing but blackmail and that I did not care what evidence he chose to give Mr. Peck or what else he might do. He then told me he was not tying to frighten me, but only telling me what Mr. Peck wanted him to say. I said that he was only wasting his time and that whatever had been my intentions previously since Dr. Chee’s visit and his own threats that morning I had determined not to assist him in any way whatsoever, that if he could not withdraw his suit he could go on with it. I mentioned to him a certain statement which Dr. Chee had made to me and he made a certain reply. I said that it was useless continuing that discussion any longer and that I was not going to pay him any money at all, that the allusions to the use he would be to Mr. Peck had no weight with me, whereupon the interview terminated. Then Mr. Brown came in and we compiled the notes he had taken. 0. On February 6, I was in Singapore. I saw Legge again in Singapore. I was in Kuala Lumpur on the morning of the 7th. When I arrived I thought that Hong Guan wanted to see me again and was coming to Kuala Lumpur to do so. On 8th, Legge came to see me at my office. After that I expected to see Hong Guan. I said I would see him the following day provided he rang me up before he came. That afternoon I had a conversation with Brown in my office and also a certain Major Fish of my staff. I told them that a certain Hong Guan would probably call upon me the following day and that I had sent word to him that I wished him to ring me up before he arrived. After Hong Guan’s arrival I wanted both of them to go into the adjoining room and Major Fish to take such shorthand notes as he could of the conversation and Brown to listen carefully. 0. Here Mr. Shearn produced a document. Inspecting it witness said: That document is in my handwriting. I wrote that on the evening of the 9th and completed it on the morning of February 10. I had seen Hong Guan that day and the document purports to be certain notes of what occurred at the interview. In view of that intending interview we had a rehearsal the previous day of what we would do when Hong Guan came round the following day. I saw Hong Guan on the 9th. He rang me up about 2.30 p.m. Just before the accused telephoned Legge also telephoned and wanted to see me. Then I went to the main office and told Brown and Fish that Hong Guan was arriving. I closed the entrance door to the private office so he would have to come though the main office. I told Brown and Fish that Hong Guan was apt to speak in somewhat low tones and in order to that they could better follow the conversation I would repeat any important remarks made by Hong Guan. When I wished the interview terminated I would drop a block off my desk and I wished Mr. Brown then to come into my room and say that someone was waiting to see me outside. The witness described the steps taken to ensure a satisfactory report of the proceedings being taken. At 2.40 p.m. Hong Guan entered the general office and, subsequently, said he was forced to come and see witness as he would no longer remain in Singapore as his may creditors were pressing him and threatening action. As soon as he received any money from witness he intended leaving the country. He said that on Monday he had gone to Singapore to meet Mr. Peck, and before leaving Mr. Peck he had promised to consider the matter, giving Mr. Peck a statement which would enable Mr. Peck to raise funds to continue his case. Witness continued: I gathered that he was demanding what he told me at the previous interview the sum of $30,000. Hong Guan said that this was so and that his position was very desperate. Mr. Hong Guan made some more remarks and I said that I now gathered from what he had just told me that $30,000 was insufficient. He said it was not sufficient as he had to go to Hong Kong so that besides the $30,000 he also wanted a loan. I enquired the amount of the loan. Hong Guan said he wanted the loan of $20,000 making with the old amount he already owed me a sum of $40,000 on loan. He told me he had done his best to get a loan elsewhere and under certain circumstances he thought that he could get it. I said that it came to this: he wanted the immediate payment down of a sum of $30,000 and, further, he wanted a loan of $20,000 so that with the $20,000 he owed on the old account, he would owe $40,000 in all on the loan, which loan he would repay at a later date. He replied that those were his terms. I asked what I would get for all this. I said I supposed he would withdraw his case. He replied that he would. I said that it did not seem to me that I was getting much advantage by him promising to withdraw his case seeing that he had already previously admitted that Mr. Sanders had told him that he could not possibly succeed in his case. Hong Guan replied that he knew he could not get judgment upon the facts of his case. I said that although he knew he could not get a judgment I understood he intended to adhere to what he threatened at the last interview to do. He said he could do sufficient to force me into the witness box and have me subjected to cross-examination. Hong Guan said that as I would not give him his terms he would instruct Mr. Sanders to proceed with the case even though it was a bad one. Hong Guan said he was desperate and did not care what he did. He did not really want to do it, but they were talking business. He explained he could make out a case and that Mr. Sanders with the assistance of Mr. Peck, would cross- examine me in such a way as not only to damage me in the eyes of the general public, but to enable Mr. Peck to obtain beforehand answers to various questions which he required in his own case. Following on the cross-examination Mr. Peck would be able to frame his own case in such a way as to have a greater chance of winning it. He said it was now a question of whether Mr. Peck could bring a case. Mr. Sanders had tried so to conduct Mr. Hong Guan’s case as to assist Mr. Peck in getting Mr. Peck’s case heard. He would arrange with Mr. Peck that he would be in court taking notes. Mr. Peck had told him what he was to ask. Accused was taking notes of what Mr. Peck wanted him to say. 0. He then handed witness certain notes, and he said that he had not yet made actual promise to Mr. Peck. He said he would prefer to give a statement to witness and to give evidence on his behalf because his honour did not allow him to say what Mr. Peck wanted him to say, but that he would give witness all the evidence he required. He said that if he were not hard pressed for money he would not want a cent for giving witness his evidence but he was in a very serious position and wanted money to get away. As he wanted to get evidence for witness and he had given nothing to Mr. Peck which would damage witness, But Mr. Peck had given him instructions as to what he had to say in order to quash the decision of the referees. 0. Mr. Russell was still giving evidence when the court rose at 5.10pm. 0. 0. 0. (2625 words)

SOCIAL AND PERSONAL. [Articles] 0. The Straits Times, 4 May 1923, Page 8 0. SOCIAL AND PERSONAL. 0. Mr. J. A. Russell, of Kuala Lumpur, has provisionally booked a passage for home by the P. and O. steamer Malwa, due to leave here on July 18. (415 words)

The Straits Times, 4 May 1923, Page 9 0. The Hong Guan Case. Sensational Termination Of Proceedings. 0. (From Our Own Correspondent.) 0. Kuala Lumpur, May 3. 0. There was a sensational termination in the Hong Guan case this afternoon. On the sitting of the Court Mr. Shearn requested to speak to the Magistrate in Chambers. His Worship consented, and after a short consultation the Court resumed. Mr. Shearn then addressed his Worship as follows: - 0. Since the adjournment I have been in consultation with the D.P.P. and my learned friend with reference to the suggestion made by your Worship that the evidence adduced by the prosecution might not amount in law to evidence of a crime, in that the threat alleged against Mr. Ng Hong Guan is not a threat of an illegal act. Acting upon the suggestion of the D.P.P. I do not propose to go further with this prosecution. I should like to say that upon hearing from Mr. Russell of the interview of February, 9, 1923, I immediately communicated with the then acting D.P.P. and afterwards with the Public Prosecutor and it was only after consulting with them that the warrant was applied for. I should have liked to have re-examined Mr. Russell upon his cross-examination, but I do not think I can at this stage do so. I have my friend’s permission to say, that as far as my client’s case is concerned with regard to the questions directed to Mr. Russell, the introduction of Khoo Wee Chuan into the transaction concerning the G.B.B. property, Mr. Russell would have explained that the reason why it was of service to Ng Hong Guan was presumably because by reason of that introduction a transfer came into existence which on the face of it showed Ng Hong Guan’s profit was 4,000 shares only and not the 8,000 shares which he certainly received. 0. Mr. Russell having concluded his evidence in chief yesterday, he was subjected to severe cross –examination by Mr. Knowles. 0. Mr. Knowles: Now Mr. Russell there are one or two matters I would like to clear up. As long ago as the visit of Dr. Chie you told him you were quite indifferent as to what statement Hong Guan might make. Did you not? –Yes. 0. You said you were prepared with independent evidence? –Yes. 0. So that was your attitude? – Yes. 0. If that was so why did you go on seeing this gentleman if he was going to tell lies about you? – He came to see me. 0. Why did you see him? - He came to see me. 0. You keep on time after time seeing this gentleman? – I can’t prevent people coming to my office to see me. Being blackmailed I wanted tangible proof of the blackmail. It was your client who came to see me. I never asked him to come and see me. 0. You knew Hong Guan had a solicitor and you had a solicitor? – Yes. 0. Did you ever communicate with Hong Guan’s solicitor that you were being black mailed? – No. 0. Why not? - Why should I? 0. You are here to answer my question. - 0. But I will answer, namely, to put a stop to it. 0. Mr. Russell continuing: - I did not think it necessary to tell Hong Guan’s solicitor I consulted my own solicitor. 0. Mr. Russell continuing: - It was Hong Guan who first suggested he give me a statement. That was about August 24, 1922. I instructed my solicitor about August 30 to get a statement from Hong Gaun. 0. Mr. Knowles: Did you tell your solicitor that Hong Guan had offered to give you a statement? - There was no need for me to tell. Hong Guan told my solicitor himself on August 24 at Mr. Shearn’s house. 0. Mr. Knowles then read a letter from Messrs. Pooley and Co. to Mr. Hong Guan dated August 30, 1922 and observed there was no mention either to give a statement to his solicitor or to Hong Guan’s solicitor. I put it to you, counsel continued, that it was you who thought Hong Guan’s statement was necessary for you in your case against Mr. Peck? - I wanted that to put before the referees in respect of the charges brought against me by Mr. Peck. It was immaterial to me whether he gave a statement as regards other matters. 0. Mr. Knowles. - This is not true. I quote from the letter (Here Mr. Knowles quoted from the letter) “ quite apart from whichever of these two views is correct, it is clear that both you and Mr. Russell are interested shewing that there was a legitimate profit made as a result of the purchase of the option and the subsequent sale thereof to Malayan Collieries Ltd.” 0. Addressing witness: Is not that the issue in the case in which Mr. Peck and other shareholders are suing you? - I don’t think it was necessary so far as I was concerned because Hong Guan had already said so in his plaint and he had already been instructed by Mr. Page that that was so. 0. Were Messrs. Pooley and Co. Solicitors for the Referees? –No. 0. Was there any reason why the referees themselves did not write to Hong Guan? – For all I know they did. They did not consult me. 0. May I ask then why you wanted a statement? - I was placing my case before the referees and was getting as many statements as I could. 0. Mr. Knowles. - Exactly. So that in August you considered Hong Guan’s evidence material or your solicitors did and in January you were indifferent? - In August I considered his evidence helpful. In the case I was placing before the referees. In January it was quite immaterial to me to obtain his evidence in the case of Mr. Peck. 0. I come down to a letter dated September 13, 1922 from Sanders and Sharma you received that letter? – Yes. 0. Mr. Knowles then read the letter as follows: - 0. 13 September 1922. 0. J. A. Russell Esqr. 0. Kuala Lumpur 0. Dear Sir, - We are instructed by Mr. Hong Guan to deal with a letter marked “Pooley and Co,” dated 30th August, but posted by you on 2nd instant. We are informed by our client that on the latter date he saw you in Kuala Lumpur and that this letter was then in your safe and that you handed it to him and asked him to see your solicitors and sign a statement of so called facts already prepared, without consulting his own solicitors as he expressed a desire to do. The letter appears to have been copied by your solicitor and not posted but on the contrary to be handed to you. At the moment we make no comment on this practice. 0. It would seem, therefore, that it was written at your wish and retained by you with a view to being thereafter posted and used in the event of the person addressed therein declining to fall in with your suggestion, so as to suggest that what you really wanted was an independent statement advised by his solicitors and taken down by yours. 0. Very properly he declined to fall in with your suggestion and you thereupon took back the letter and it appears to have been enclosed in an envelope and addressed by you to him in Singapore. We have no hesitation in advising our client to sign no statement prepared by you or anyone on your instructions. Our client recently was forced to take action against you to obtain the share of profit due to him from the Pamoekan Bay Colliery option in which in accordance with the practice prevailing between you both in similar deals it was agreed that profits should be divided 1/3rd and 2/3rd shares respectively, and that you as the party responsible for financing should be entitled to the extra 1/3rd share. For the moment you have defeated our client’s attempt to gain justice by objecting to the venue and in support of the objection you have filed an affidavit denying our clients allegations. We are satisfied that the only reason why you are in a position to do this with even the remotest prospect of success is because you have from time to time to relying on our client’s boyish good nature and trust in your honour induced him to sign various written documents carefully prepared by yourself in advance from which you purposely omitted any reference to the representation made by yourself although they formed the basis of the transactions. 0. Our client signed these documents relying implicitly on your good faith and on the truth of the representations you made to him as to the profits of your deal with Malayan Collieries Ltd, as to which the fullest disclosure by yourself was imperative, seeing that the real facts were known to yourself and to yourself alone. 0. We do not think that you can seriously imagine that our client’s interests and your own are “ identical”, or that anyone else can be under any such delusion. 0. We are instructed to proceed with his action forthwith. His claim has been for some time past in your hands. 0. We hereby give notice that unless our client’s claim is admitted and settled within the next 48 hours proceedings will be taken against you during the course of the present week, and without further notice. Yours faithfully (Sd.) SANDERS AND SHARMA 0. Mr. Knowles, continuing. - In reply to that a letter, dated September 15, was written by Messrs. Pooley and Co. to Messrs. Sanders and Sharma. I will read it. Mr. Knowles then read the letter as follows: - 0. Kuala Lumpur, Federated Malay States 15th September 1922. 0. Pooley and Co., Advocates, Solicitors. 0. Dear Sirs, Mr. Russell has handed to us your letter of the 12th instant written upon the instructions of Mr. Ng Hong Guan. 0. You appear to have been misinstructed by your client to a marked degree. 0. Upon the 24th ultimo Mr. Ng Hong Guan came to see the writer in the company of Mr. Russell at the writer’s private house and then produced to the writer a letter written by Mr. Page of Messrs. Allen and Gledhill wherein to the best of the writer’s recollection Mr. Page advised Mr. Ng Hong Guan that it would be contrary to his Mr. Ng Hong Guan’s interest if Mr. Peck succeeded in his action against Mr. Russell because Mr. Ng Hong Guan claimed to be Mr. Russell’s partner in certain profits made by reason of the sale to Malayan Collieries Ltd., and if Mr. Peck succeeded there would as a result be no profits. 0. Mr. Hong Guan professed himself as being desirous of making a statement. The writer enquired if Mr. Page had been consulted by Mr. Ng Hong Guan upon the matter and upon hearing that he had not, told Mr. Ng Hong Guan that he had better discuss with Mr. Page the advisability of his giving a statement. 0. Mr. Ng Hong Guan thereupon departed saying that he would see Mr. Page upon his return to Singapore. 0. On the 30th ultimo Mr. Russell informed the writer that Mr. Ng Hong Guan was back in Kuala Lumpur and had again mentioned the matter of the statement. The writer enquired if Mr. Ng Hong Guan had seen Mr. Page and whether he had any letter from that gentleman. Mr. Russell stated that he understood Mr. Ng Hong Guan had not seen Mr. Page and certainly had no letter from him. 0. The writer thereupon advised Mr. Russell against any statement being taken before it was clearly established that Mr. Ng Hong Guan had been advised to consult his lawyer and he wrote out the letter of the 30th ultimo. Mr. Russell stated that he was going to Singapore that night and that as Mr. Hong Guan was going there also he would hand the letter to Mr. Hong Guan himself that night on the train. 0. We are instructed that Mr. Russell met Mr. Ng Hong Guan on the train and that Mr. Ng Hong Gaun then informed Mr. Russell that he was financially embarrassed and produced a document which we gather from Mr. Russell account of it was a Bankruptcy Notice issued on behalf of some Indian form in Singapore. Mr. Ng Hong Guan indicated to Mr. Russell that in return for his statement he would like some financial assistance. 0. Mr. Russell told Mr. Ng Hong Guan that his proposal was quite out of the question and that he would not discuss the matter further with him. Mr. Russell therefore did not deliver the letter of the 30th ultimo. 0. Mr. Russell returned to Kuala Lumpur on the night of the 31st and Mr. Ng Hong Guan did so as well. 0. Mr. Russell informed the writer during the morning of the 1st as to what had occurred. 0. In the afternoon of the 1st September Mr. Ng Hong Guan saw Mr. Russell in his office and discussed some mining venture in China which he had previously mentioned to Mr. Russell. He stated he would make the statement without any financial assistance being rendered to him but he hoped Mr. Russell would assist him in the matter of the mining venture. Mr. Ng Hong Guan had apparently in the meanwhile had no meeting with Mr. Page. 0. Mr. Russell spoke to the writer on the telephone who said that the matter was no further advanced than upon the 24th and 30th ultimo on both of which occasions Mr. Ng Hong Guan had volunteered a statement and that under the circumstances he was not prepared to take Mr. Ng Hong Guan’s statement until the letter of the 30th ultimo had actually been posted to Mr. Ng Hong Guan at his address in Singapore so that it was clear that Mr. Ng Hong Guan had had the opportunity of consulting Mr. Page. 0. The writer can only surmise that the reason why Mr. Ng Hong Guan had failed to see Mr. Page was because Mr. Page was unwilling to see him. 0. We are instructed that Mr. Russell shewed the letter to Mr. Ng Hong Guan and told him he would post it to him. 0. We are not quite sure what you mean by stating the letter appears to be “copied” by Mr. Russell’s solicitors and we fail to see why under the circumstances the letter could not properly have been handed by us to Mr. Russell for delivery on the day of its date. 0. As regards your second paragraph there is not the slightest foundation for the suggestion you make and we must express our surprise that you see fit to make it. You appear not to have noticed the somewhat glaring inconstancy in your argument that the letter of the 30th ultimo was shewn to Mr. Ng Hong Guan and thereafter Mr. Russell endeavored to obtain a statement by Mr. Ng Hong Guan and without his having first consulted his lawyers. 0. We should have thought that it was scarcely necessary to point out that had this been Mr. Russell’s intention he never would have shewn to Mr. Ng Hong Guan the letter of the 30th ultimo before the statement being given. 0. With regard to the remainder of your letter, Mr. Russell has no intention whatever of satisfying your client’s preposterous claim. 0. Your second paragraph on page three seems to shew a divergence of opinion with that expressed by Mr. Page. Yours faithfully, (Sgd.) POOLEY and CO. 0. (The conclusion of the report will be given in our issue tomorrow.) 0. 0. (2603 words)

The Straits Times, 5 May 1923, Page 10 0. Hong Guan Case. 0. Cross-examination of Mr. J. A. Russell. 0. (From Our Own Correspondent.) 0. Kuala Lumpur, May 2. 0. Following is the conclusion of the case in which Ng Hong Guan charged with criminally intimidating Mr. J. A. Russell. 0. Mr. Knowles continued the cross-examination of Mr. Russell as follows:- 0. I now call for a letter of October 4 addressed to Pooley and Co., by Sanders and Sharma. I will read it. 0. The letter was then read as follows:- 0. 4 October 1922 0. Messrs. Pooley and Company, 0. Kuala Lumpur 0. Dear Sirs, - We regret the delay in answering you letter of the 15th ult. And in issuing the writ against Mr. Russell. 0. This has been caused by our client’s illness which has prevented him form coming to Kuala Lumpur till the present week. 0. We could not properly reply to your letter or complete the plaint without a personal interview with him. We have now seen him and are instructed as follows:- 0. Prior to the visit of the 24th August you refer to, our client by accident, met Mr. Russell in Singapore and informed him that in view of the various letters appearing in the press over the signatures of “ Anti Stoic” “Waverer” “Justice” and “Perplexed” it behoved our client to make a written statement for the committee of enquiry. 0. Mr. Russell then produced a statement in pencil in his own handwriting on about 5 sheets of Europe Hotel letter paper which they went through together and your client started to have it typed for signature by our client. While this was being done our client went and saw his lawyer Mr. Page who wanted to see the statement and asked for a fair copy, but Mr. Russell objected to parting with it. 0. He then asked our client to come up to Kuala Lumpur to discuss the matter further. 0. Shortly afterwards, viz., on 24th August our client came up to Kuala Lumpur called on Mr. Russell at his office early in the morning and shewed him the letter written by Messrs. Allen and Gledhill dated 12th August to which you refer. Mr. Russell was very agitated over the contents of the letter which referred (inter alia) to the “great importance” of the letters in our client’s possession “ in the claim of dissatisfied shareholders” against your client. 0. The suggestion contained in the last paragraph of the letter to send to London for Counsel’s opinion however appealed to your client who suggested that, if the originals were sent, Mr. Peck’s amiable efforts might be frustrated. He rang up your office on the telephone and ascertained you were at your house and prevailed upon our client to accompany him in his car to your house. On the way your client pressed our client to help him by signing a statement to defeat Mr. Peck’s claim as otherwise he would be in financial difficulties for many years to come. 0. At your house Mr. Russell asked your opinion about sending these letters to London or otherwise disposing of them and our client pointed out that in view of his claim against your client this was out of the question. 0. Your client then produced a typewritten statement from his pocket (which you apparently recognized at a glance) and again asked our client to sign. 0. The latter said he could only do so provided it did not prejudice his claim, and suggested you and your client should go to Singapore and see Mr. Page of Messrs. Allen and Gledhill with regard to his letter and the proposed statement. 0. You agreed to the suggestion and accordingly our client left with Mr. Russell and at 11.35 dispatched a telegram to Mr. Page to arrange a meeting with you in Singapore, to which the latter assented by wire. 0. You were incorrect in stating our client did not see Mr. Page- he did interview Mr. Page, but it was your client who told our client on the 30th he did not wish the interview to take place. 0. In the light of these facts the motive of your letter of 30th August is plain enough. 0. Had you attended the interview in Singapore, Mr. Page would have seen the proposed statement. 0. Your letter suggests that Mr. Page should assent in principal to our client signing a statement, and that our client should then “ make an appointment” with you (not with his own lawyer) for the “purpose of taking down his statement”. 0. Your letter of the 15 ult. further suggests that you contemplated taking such a statement, provided you had established in writing that our client “had been advised to consult his lawyer”, whether he did so or not. 0. You further suggest that Mr. Russell proposed to hand your letter to our client on the train on the evening of the day it was written. In fact Mr. Russell met our client before the train started and had he intended to deliver the letter he could have done so before they had any interview. It was, we are instructed, your client who suggested a loan to our client provided the latter would give him a statement that your letter of the 30th August shews he so urgently desired. The whole interview lasted only a few minutes. 0. The matter was not properly discussed till the morning of the 1st ult, when Mr. Russell offered our client $5,000 for a statement such as he desired and a further “ liberal sum” (amount unspecified) if he defeated Mr. Peck. Our client declined to be a party to any transaction which involved payment for an untrue statement of the facts, and he then came and informed the writer of this offer and his refusal. Your version is wholly inconsistent with the known facts, for Mr. Hong Guan was in our office in the afternoon of the 1st ult and not in Mr. Russell’s office, and there was a complete and final breach between the parties that morning. 0. It was only (as already stated) after your client realised that our client was properly represented here as well as in Singapore, viz. on Saturday the 2nd ult. That he made the belated delivery of the letter in the post. 0. Your references to our client not seeing Mr. Page are equally wide of the mark- our client has been in the habit of seeing him about twice a week. 0. There was no inconsistency in our argument of any sort. You admit the letter was not handed to our client when he was en route to or in Singapore, when it would have resulted in his consulting his lawyer, but only when he was in Kuala Lumpur, and the lawyer too far away to be consulted and when it could be used to inspire confidence and extract a statement without the least danger of Mr. Page seeing the statement or any real chance of his being consulted. In fact when the letter emerged from your client’s safe it was impressed on our client that his statement was wanted at once, as the Committee would sit in a few days time viz. on Wednesday 6th ult. 0. Moreover our client was not permitted to retain this letter, and only received it after he had definitely and finally refused to make any statement whatever, and when therefore the letter could serve the useful purpose of covering up the facts. 0. Moreover even then it was held back for a clear 24 hours, presumably to enable your client to consult you as to the advisability of sending it – a foolish pretence seeing that all chance of getting the statement had vanished. 0. We are instructed by our client that the statement was mostly misleading and in parts deliberately untrue. 0. All the facts point clearly to one and only one conclusion that your client was throughout straining every nerve to get our client to sign a statement that no one but your client and yourself has ever read. 0. If the statement was of a truthful and proper character it would have been produced to us long ago, or to Mr. Page at an even earlier date, and the above facts shew that it is such a statement as your client was afraid or ashamed to disclose. 0. We are issuing the plaint forthwith. 0. Yours faithfully, (Sd.) SANDERS AND SHARMA. 0. And Messrs. Pooley and Co., wrote the following reply which was then read:- Kuala Lumpur 6th October, 1922 0. J. A. Russell v. Ng Hong Guan 0. Dear Sirs,- We are in receipt of your letter of the 4th instant to which we do not propose to reply to at length. 0. According to our instructions the letter sets out the grossest misrepresentations of the true facts. Your client appears to have misinstructed you to no marked degree but we see no useful purpose that can be served by dealing with his misstatements in detail. 0. The writer was present at the interview referred to at the foot of page 2 and the commencement of page 3 of your letter and he knows and if necessary can prove that what you there stated is incorrect. 0. Yours faithfully, Sgd. POOLEY AND CO. 0. Messrs. Sanders and Sharma, Kuala Lumpur. 0. Mr. Knowles (to witness). - Did you produce a sheet in pencil in your own handwriting in Europe Hotel note paper and go through it with Hong Guan? 0. Mr. Russell was going on to say something about July 20 when Mr. Knowles interposed: Did you produce a statement, I ask? - Not a statement. I had notes and showed them to the accused. They were notes giving some facts in regard to a letter which he propped writing to the Straits Times or Free Press, I forget which. The notes were for his assistance. 0. Was that letter a statement with regard to his position in the Malayan Collieries Deal? – Yes. 0. Did you go through it with the accused? 0. -Yes. 0. Did you start having it typed to get his signature? – No. 0. Mr. Russell (continuing). - The accused then went away and did not return. I deny that accused told me that Mr. Page wanted to see his notes. I cannot say what I did with the notes. I did not hand them to Hong Guan. I am not sure whether the accused took notes from my notes or not. The accused told me his object in writing to the press. He said that a great number of anonymous letters had appeared in the press and that his evidence was the chief evidence with regard to the purchase by the Malayan Collieries of the Pamoekan Bay Colliery and I asked him why he remained silent. He showed me some of these letters and said that owing to continual questions being put to him by his friends of a like nature, his position was almost unbearable, and he had decided to write a letter to the press, and asked me if I would assist him writing such a letter. He told me he was sorry about his suit, and that he had been acting upon the advice of false friends and he did not intend proceeding with it. The action had been dismissed and he was not bringing a fresh one. 0. Mr. Knowles.- Did you think he was genuine, when he said that? - I can’t say I thought he was genuine. I had an open mind. 0. Mr. Russell (continuing).- Later he brought the action again, and in spite of that he asked me for an interview and I granted it. I did not produce any type written statement to the accused before Mr. Shearn. 0. Mr. Knowles. - On the morning of September 1, did you offer the accused $5,000 and a further sum if he defeated Mr. Peck? - No. 0. Coming down to the warrant, Mr. Russell, you applied for the warrant in this case on February 14, 1923? – Yes. 0. You gave the address as Singapore? - 0. Yes, I think I said 227 Telok Ayer Street. 0. Did you make any attempt to get that warrant served? -All I did was to inform the police that he was in Singapore. Some days later I was in Singapore and I was told he had been seen in the evening in a ricksha. When I got back I told my solicitor about it. 0. Mr. Russell (replying to Mr. Knowles). - 0. I did not know that the accused on learning of the issuing of the warrant from the public press surrendered himself at once to the Singapore police. I was not aware that inquiries were being made to find out where this warrant was on February 27, nor that a letter had been written from Singapore on March 1 to find out what had happened to the warrant and what was being done and that inquiry was again made in Singapore and the warrant had not arrived there. 0. Mr. Knowles. - You did not know that it did not arrive in Singapore till March 8th? – No. You took no steps to see that the warrant was served? -No. 0. Why not? - Why should I? It was in the hands of the police. 0. You made this elaborate trap to catch Hong Guan, but you made no effort to get the warrant served? (There was no reply forthcoming to this question). 0. This case has been down for hearing on several occasions and you asked for postponements? – Yes. 0. Did you in the meantime instruct your emissary Legge to see Hong Guan? - No. 0. Do you know anything about a telegram sent at the last moment by Legge to Hong Guan to try and see him? - No. 0. What was the reason for your applying for a postponement last Monday? – I wished Legge to come up here and he was not able. 0. Had you seen him? - No. 0. You were in communication with him? - Yes. 0. Was it anything to do with the fact that you having the annual general meeting of the Malayan Collieries Ltd., on April 27? - No. 0. I want now to go back to a few matters connected with the Collieries themselves. 0. Mr. Shearn (interposing). - There is a pending suit and Mr. Peck is in court. 0. The Magistrate, - Do you mean the court’s hands are tied? 0. Mr. Knowles, - Allegations have been made that Hong Guan has been attempting to sell a statement. My allegation is that that statement has, rightly or wrongly, been regarded by the witness as a material statement for his case and having failed by certain means to get it he gets Legge to lead the accused into a trap and now he pretends that he has been criminally intimidated. A great deal of irrelevant matter has been introduced to which I did not object for this very purpose. 0. Mr. Knowles (addressing witness). - I think you had some dealings with the accused for some time? – Yes. 0. As long ago as February 1918? –Yes. 0. Was there a partnership between you and the accused in a mining concern in Trengganu? – Yes. 0. You were to get equal shares? - (Witness did not reply at once to this question, but after Mr. Knowles produced a document and having examined it witness replied in the affirmative.) 0. You financed the development? - Yes. 0. Some time about September, 1920, you had an arrangement with the accused as regards the acquisition of this Pamoekan Bay Colliery? – Yes. 0. Do you mind telling me what you claimed that arrangement was? –I claimed that Hong Guan sold me an option for $100,000 in Malayan Colliery shares at $30 a share. 0. At that time you were the chairman of directors of Malayan Collieries, Ltd., and your firm was agents and secretaries for Malayan Collieries Ltd.,? –Yes. 0. Mr. Russell (continuing to reply to Mr. Knowles). - I deny that the accused and I entered into a partnership for the sale of the option to Malayan Collieries on the basis of one third of the purchase price to Hong Guan and two thirds to myself. 0. Mr. Knowles (producing a document). - Is that a copy of the option? – I am prepared to say the accused showed me an option in September, 1920. In view of the case Mr. Peck is bringing against me, I have to be very careful. I think I saw three options in September. One or two may have been in October. 0. Mr. Knowles (producing a document). - Was this authority given by you both as chairman of the Malayan Collieries and as managing agents and secretaries of that company to Hong Guan? - It was given by me on behalf of Malayan Collieries Ltd., to the accused for applying for options over coal properties in the Dutch East Indies. It was not given to the accused for the purpose of dealing with Pamoekan Bay property and other properties. 0. The document referred to is the letter of authority given by Mr. Russell to Hong Gaun. 0. Mr. Knowles (producing a letter from Russell to Hong Gaun and which was printed in the Straits Times in the course of a letter by Mr. F. C. Peck on June 8, 1922) Do you recognize that document? – Yes, I wrote that to Hong Guan on April 27, 1920. It was not written for the purpose of obtaining a better price for the Goenoeng Batoe Besar property. 0. Mr. Shearn (interposing). - How does this effect the accused? 0. Mr. Knowles. - My first question to the witness was whether he was indifferent as to what statement Hong Guan might chose to make and he said “yes”. It was also been alleged that Hong Guan wanted to sell a statement, but so far from Hong Gaun wanted to sell me it was Russell who wanted a statement from Hong Guan. 0. Mr. Shearn, - We are not trying the case Peck v. Russell. 0. The Magistrate (to Mr. Shearn). - You did not focus your attention wholly on the charge in cross-examination counsel has an absolutely free hand. 0. Mr. Knowles. - He has been endeavoring all through to convince your Worship that Mr. Russell was indifferent to any statement that Hong Guan might make. 0. Mr. Russell (replying to Mr. Knowles)- 0. That letter was given by me to the accused, but I repeat that it was not given for the purpose of getting better terms form The Eastern Rubber and Mining Company. Mr. Hong Guan, however, did get a different option. 0. Another document was here produced and, witness identifying it, said: That letter was written on Malayan Collieries’ paper but not written on their behalf. It is signed by me personally and not as agent. 0. Did you ask for the option to be transferred to the name of Khoo Wee Chuan? - The option was in the name of Hong Guan who suggested that it should be transferred to the name of someone else. (Khoo Wee Chuan) He said that he had a number of relations and if they saw he was making so much they might bleed him too much. They might impose on his generosity too much and he did not want to let them know how much he was making. 0. I think Dr. Lim Boon Keng is a relative of the accused by marriage? – Yes. 0. He was on the Board of the Eastern Mining Company? – Yes. 0. Who would naturally be cognizant with the giving of the option? Why should he? 0. Anyway, it was transferred to the name of Khoo Wee Chuan? –Yes. 0. Was he in your employment? - He looks after my Chinese mines and in the working of some of them he is my partner. 0. He obtained a profit out of this? - Yes I gave him the profit. 0. So that to assist Hong Guan escape from his family troubles you were prepared to give Khoo Wee Chuan some money? - Not only that. 0. Was there any other reason? – Yes. 0. At the same time I wanted to put some of my property under nominees. 0. So that he didn’t acquire them on his own behalf. He acquired them for you? - 0. He acquired them for me. 0. Does he still hold them? – No. 0. You actually gave Hong Guan 8,000 shares? – Yes. 0. Can you suggest how the arrangement of transferring could have been kept back form Hong Guan’s relatives? - No. It was his idea. 0. So all this was to assist Hong Guan to keep the transaction from his relatives? - I say he first suggested that it would be advisable to assist him because I was also anxious to put some of my property in the names of others. 0. So that transfer was made to Khoo Wee Chuan and all the amount due to the accused was paid to him? – More than was due. 0. You are inventing facts? – I am not Mr. Knowles. 0. According to your story you assisted the accused in concealing the profit he was making, I say the whole thing is untrue. – I say it is not. 0. Mr. Knowles. - Can you give any other explanation? – No. 0. I put it to you that not until the final option was given and you suddenly found you had been dealing in the name of Malayan Collieries that you started using the paper of J. A. Russell and Company? - No. 0. Here is a letter of October 1, also written on Malayan Collieries note paper. Is that written by you? - Yes. 0. On Malayan Collieries note paper on which is written that the agents are J. A. Russell and Company? - The letter I signed by me personally. 0. Who do you say acquired the option from Hong Guan? - My firm. 0. Who transferred it to the Malayan Collieries? - I think I did it personally, but I can’t remember. 0. What was your object in keeping on with Legge? You told us all along you were quite indifferent as to any statement that Hong Guan might make. You told us all along that it was quite indifferent to you and you say you had nothing to fear from his case, what I ask you was your object? - On January 20, 1923, he mentioned to me that the accused had asked him to threaten me and had also asked him to commit perjury by saying that the accused had made no attempt to settle the case out of court. I wished to obtain evidence from him for the purpose of cross-examining Hong Guan in the case which in spite of the fact he said he was withdrawing he had not done so. I knew that he had kept on the case to blackmail me. 0. Mr. Knowles. - So that on January 25 you were telling Dr. Chee you were quite indifferent and at the same time you were telling someone else to obtain evidence to cross examine Hong Guan. - I told Dr. Chee I was quite indifferent as to the evidence Hong Guan might give in Mr. Peck’s case. That does not imply that I did not require information which would be useful in regard to Hong Guan’s acts and which would be useful to cross-examine Hong Guan in Hong Guan’s case. 0. What statement did you want from Hong Guan? – I think I have already told you, Mr. Knowles. When the referees were about to sit to enquire into the accusations made against me by Mr. Peck they desired to obtain statements from persons who had knowledge of the transaction, and in order that I might put them before the referees I instructed my solicitors to get statements. 0. If this statement was of no use to you surely there is no question of intimidation? In what way would this statement have intimidated you? - I have never said any statement was made to intimidate me. 0. Do you mean that? (With emphasis) 0. Do you mean that? – (No reply.) 0. What statement was it that you feared from Hong Guan that in any sense could have intimidated you? - You were asking me about the statement to the referees. 0. What I want to know is what statement you feared form Hong Guan that in any sense would intimidate you? - I have repeatedly said that whatever statement Hong Guan might choose to give….. 0. So that there is nothing in Hong Guan’s statement that could have intimidated you in any way? - As I said to Dr. Chee any statement Hong Guan might choose to make I could disprove by the independent evidence of Dr. Lim Boon Keng and others. 0. In what way could any statement from Hong Guan injure your reputation? - 0. That depends on what Hong Guan says. Any statement he makes would be disbelieved. There was nothing I was ever afraid of, as I have repeatedly pointed out. 0. Coming down to February 9, had you any idea that those documents were going to be produced at the interview? – No. 0. Do you mean that Mr. Russell? – Yes. 0. You knew nothing at all about those letters that were produced at the meeting until the meeting actually took place? – No. 0. Mr. Legge was a solicitor’s clerk? – I don’t know. At that time he was endeavoring to collect certain information for me in regard to certain acts of Hong Guan. 0. What do you allege against the accused? - I allege one or two things. A threat to give a statement to Mr. Peck- to give any sort of evidence “ foul or fair” -I think was the expression he used- in Mr. Peck’s suit and to continue with his case and to subject me during that case to cross examination at the direction of Mr. Peck, which would injure me in the suit Mr. Peck was bringing. 0. Mr. Knowles. - Is that all? – Yes. 0. Magistrate. - Is that the head and front of the offending? 0. Mr. Knowles. - That is apparently all. 0. Mr. Knowles (to witness)- Coming to the interview of February 9, why did you not tell us Mr. Legge was present? - I did say so. 0. Mr. Knowles. - You did not. - I did. 0. A lively altercation took place between counsel, Mr. Knowles saying it was not until he had asked whether Legge was present that Mr. Russell had mentioned the fact that Legge was present. Mr. Knowles appealed to the Magistrate. 0. Mr. Knowles (to witness)- Where did Legge sit at the interview? - At the same table behind Hong Guan. 0. Replying to Mr. Knowles witness said: I did not expect any documents to be produced. Legge did not tell me that the documents were going to be produced. I paid Legge’s expenses of about $300 and within the last ten days or so I have paid him about $600 in Singapore to bring up six witnesses. 0. Mr. Knowles. – You were not afraid Hong Guan would in any way injure your reputation, I suppose? - No, only temporarily. 0. I will now ask you a general question. I know you will deny it, Mr. Russell, but did you make any offer to Hong Guan to stop his civil suit? - No. The only offer I ever made was a sum of $500 as passage money and compassionate allowance to go away to China and start afresh. 0. Mr. Knowles here terminated the cross examination, and Mr. Shearn having decided to defer the re-examination till today, Mr. A. A. Vanderhurst, manager of Messrs. Loxley and Co., Singapore, gave evidence as to the fact that Hong Guan had telephoned to him in Singapore on several occasions wanting to see Mr. Russell. 0. At this stage the court adjourned till 2.15 pm the next day when proceedings terminated as recorded in our last issue. 0. 0. (4566 words)

The Straits Times, 9 May 1923, Page 10 The Hong Guan Case. The following is the order of the magistrate in the case in which Mr. Ng Hong Guan was charged with criminal intimidation: —The court does not say a prima facie case has not been made out, but points out that under the Criminal Procedure Code S. 218 (a) the offence of criminal intimidation is compoundable by the person intimidated when the maximum punishment does not exceed seven years’ imprisonment. Mr. Shearn, having consulted the Deputy Public Prosecutor, withdraws. The accused is charged. (86 words)

The Straits Times, 21 May 1923, Page 8  Malayan Collieries, Ltd., is to have an exhibit at the British Empire Exhibition. (13 words)

The Straits Times, 24 May 1923, Page 9  Engineering Association. We are informed by Mr. D. W. Brisbane, the hon. secretary, that the Engineering Association of Malaya will hold a meeting in Kuala Lumpur on May 26 and 27, the programme of which covers the following events: - Saturday, 26th, visit to Malayan Collieries at Batu Arang and return in time for dinner at the Station Hotel, Kuala Lumpur. Sunday, 27th: Ordinary general meeting at the Association’s room, Straits Trading Buildings, when several interesting papers will be read. (79 words)

The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser (1884-1942), 28 May 1923, Page 6 Judgement was given on Wednesday, in the Kuala Lumpur civil court in the case in which Mr. Faucett sued Messrs J. A. Russell and Co., for $327.50 damages as a result of a motor car collision in Syers Road. Mr. McClausland, the magistrate, gave judgement for plaintiff for the full amount claimed and costs. Mr. E.A.S. Wagner appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Ferrers for the defendants.Untitled [Articles] The Straits Times 28 May 1923 page 8 The Malay Mail states that judgement was given on Wednesday, in the civil court in the case in which Mr. Faucett sued Messrs J. A. Russell and Co., for $327.50 damages as a result of a motor car collision in Syers Road. Mr. McClausland, the magistrate, gave judgement for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed and costs. Mr. E.A.S. Wagner appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Ferrers for the defendants. 0. (72 words)

The Straits Times, 12 June 1923, Page 8  The Malayan Collieries, Ltd., has invited the members of the F.M.S. Chamber of Mines to visit their mine on Sunday morning, July 15, next. Tiffin will be provided and a paper will be either read or printed and distributed. (39 words)

The Straits Times, 13 June 1923, Page 9 Malayan Collieries. Peck-Russell Suit Argument Opened. (From Our Own Correspondent.) Kuala Lumpur, June 12. The argument in the Peck-Russell appeal was begun in the Appeal Court, this morning. Sir Lionel Woodward, C. J.C., presided, and was supported on the bench by Messrs. Justices Watson and McCabe Reay. Mr. H.D. Mundell, of Singapore, assisted by Mr. Harte Lovelace, of Lovelace and Hastings, appeared for the appellant, and Mr. M. J. Upcott, of Singapore, assisted by Mr. E.D. Shearn of Pooley and Co., appeared for the first and second defendant respondents, while Mr. Ivens, of Bannon and Bailey, appeared for the third defendant respondent. Having briefly narrated the facts of the case, Mr. Mundell said that the plaint alleged that the first and second defendants were managing agents of the company. Hong Guan obtained the option for the first and second defendants. He obtained it on and behalf of the company. The plaint further alleged that the option being the property of the company, the first and second defendants caused it to be transferred to the second defendant. Having done so, they caused the benefit of the option without disclosure to be sold to the company and so obtained 80,000 shares part of the unpaid capital and so made a secret profit. The plaint was signed on July 26, 1922. Application for leave to sue was made in the Supreme Court on July 29. On August 23 leave to sue was given. The order was taken out on September 6 and on September 15 the plaint was filed. The defence was not filed until December 13, when the first and second defendants filed their defense. On December 15, the defence of the company was filed. On December 18 the matter came before court for hearing. After three days’ argument, the judge framed three issues. These issues were: 1. May the court regard anything except the plaint? 2. Does the plaint disclose a cause of action in the present plaintiff? 3. Assuming the court can regard the defences of all the defendants, the four documents attached to the defence and the memo and Articles of Association, is there a cause of action in the present plaint? It was the second issue which the defendants asked the judge to decide on, and he presumed it was framed on the allegations of Sir Arthur Adams. There were also certain filed issues, and one of them was “assuming that the plaintiff is at all entitled to sue whether or not his claim to relief is confined to recission of the contract which is not the relief claimed in the suit. Continuing, Mr. Mundell said that after a very lengthy argument the trail judge, Mr. Justice Farrar- Manby, reserved his judgment, and eventually delivered a judgment, which Mr. Mundell proceeded to read. Speaking on it, he asked their Lordships to notice that throughout the whole judgment the judge took the action as against Mr. Russell alone and not against his firm. Mr. Mundell continued that the appellant had filed a memorandum of appeal, which he did not propose to read, in which it was stated that the judge had gone wrong on a number of points. Counsel said that they alleged the judge was wrong because he did not understand what documents he could refer to, or rather the purposes for which he could refer to the documents which were before him. His lordship was asked by defendants to refer to their defence, and he had done so. He was asked by the defendants to try the case on the pleadings without going into the facts, and he had done so. The judgment, counsel said, was therefore wrong. If their lordships referred to the judge’s notes it would be found that the defendants said: “Look at our defence and see the facts alleged”. Then they attached the allegations in the plaint and said these allegations were untrue. Then they said “under article 92 of the articles of association (which, said counsel, had nothing whatsoever to do with the matter) Mr. Russell was entitled to sell. That the sale was not by Mr. Russell but by Russell and Co., then they made a great argument on the plaint that all the directors were not sued. In fact, that point and the point under article 92 of the articles of association were two of their principal arguments. If the judge had not gone wrong on the first issue he would not have decided the question of fact in connection with the plaint and if he had not done so he would have decided in the plaintiff’s favour. One of the great points raised by the defence was that all the directors were not sued. At one point the learned judge was right, and that was he disregarded certain circumstances which might entitle the plaintiff to sue. He stated that if the “cause” of action was of a character in which the majority could not bind the minority, then the plaintiff could sue and in that respect counsel submitted he was right. If the nature of the cause of action was such that a single shareholder could sue then the circumstances of the present case entitled the plaintiff to sue. To make the point clear, he wished to mention the proposition which he meant to place before their lordships later, namely that for a single shareholder to maintain an action on behalf of himself and other shareholders it was necessary (1) that the actual transaction complained of was one on which no majority could bind a majority, (2) that the circumstances were such that the company would not or could not be made to sue. Continuing, Mr. Mundell referred to two important dates besides those which he had mentioned. The first was August 16 when there was a general meeting of Malayan Collieries, Ltd., when Mr. Russell’s votes turned the scale of the meeting; the second date was November 21, when there was another general meeting when the majority decided against the suit being continued against the company. Mr. Mundell next criticized certain issues framed in the case on paragraph 1 of the defence which raised two issues, which they had no right to raise in that form. The issue raised was that the plaint disclosed no cause for action. Mr. Mundell then went on to deal with the date of presentation of the plaint for the purposes of the suit and next referred to the pleadings, criticising the defence, which he pointed out contained statements with reference to a number of shares held by the defendants, a denial of the fact that the directors had refused to sue; allegations as to what the company had done and the board of directors had done; allegations as to the calling of a meeting on June 29 for the purpose of considering whether the matter should be referred to referees, allegations that the plaint was lodged after notice of this meeting had been given, and further allegations as to the resolutions passed at the meeting of August 16, 1922, the referees finding and the resolution passed at the meeting of November 21, also as to the voting of the first defendant at this meeting. He then proceeded to criticise pleas in the defence and had not concluded when court rose for the day. (1249 words)(No M.M. version of this found yet)

The Peck-Russell Appeal. [Articles] The Straits Times, 14 June 1923, Page 9 The Peck-Russell Appeal. Legal Argument Continued At Kuala Lumpur. (From Our Own Correspondent.) Kuala Lumpur, June 13. Continuing his argument before the Court of Appeal, yesterday, Mr. Mundell said that the trial Judge's finding on the issues were all fallacious because he had nothing on which to base his findings. If the Judge had not gone wrong on the first issue he would have found that no majority can bind the minority and plaintiff could sue. He disregarded entirely the circumstances which entitled plaintiff to sue. Hong Guan was the person who originally acquired the option and then it was transferred to the company. It was a case of a sale by an agent and not by a firm. At all times material Russell and Co. were the managing agents, and whilst agents, he alleged they acquired by fraudulent means the property of the company. That was their allegation and if the allegations in their plaint were true they were quite entitled to sue. Further, he said that they were not claiming against the defendant Mr. Russell, but he was a party to the fraud and being so was liable jointly with the firm and severally. If Mr. Russell acquired this option for Malayan Collieries, then he could not sell it to the company without full disclosure. In fact, he could not sell it at all because it was the property of the company. If he sold it to the company as a director he would have to disclose it, and if he acquired it for himself he would be able to sell it with disclosure. The trail Judge seemed to have overlooked the fact that Russell and Co. were the managing agents of the company. Continuing, counsel said that according to the plaint and according to the defence the property was purchased by the Malayan Collieries on November 23, and for nearly seven moths afterwards this transaction was not disclosed to shareholders. The agreement was not filed till June 10, and when filed it was signed by Mr. Russell himself and Mr. Henggeler, a director. Document “G” was the only disclosure to one director, but the trial Judge held that the shareholders had ratified the transaction. He asked their Lordships to notice that there was no statement in the resolutions stating that shareholders had ratified the transaction, nor was the resolution a ratification of the transaction. He further submitted that in view of their allegations in the plaint the Judge was not right in saying that Ex. “D” attached to the plaint was written by Mr. Russell on behalf of himself. It was written on behalf of the Malayan Collieries. The a letter started with “I” but afterwards spoke of “We” and “Our” and he submitted that that was meant to be “ Malayan Collieries” All these misconceptions must naturally have influenced his Lordship in coming to the decisions to which he did come. If he had only considered the plaint he would have given judgment in plaintiff’s favour. Counsel next referred to the law in which a shareholder was entitled to sue on behalf of himself and other shareholders. The law, he said, was simple but if a lot of cases were cited without principle as done in court below it became very difficult indeed. Having briefly referred to the law, counsel brought forward the particular instances where this kind of suit can be maintained. In all the cases, he said, the general principal must be recognised that justice could not be overborne by rules. He then cited cases on the seven exceptions to the rule were votes of the majority could bind the minority, after which the Court adjourned until this morning. Resuming this morning, Mr. Mundell, went on to cite authorities on the rule itself. He said that the case of Atwell v. Merryweather was exactly a similar case to the present. In that case on defendant’s own admission, they knew that defendants held 126,000 odd shares out of 310,000, which was over 40 per cent. If one-sixth was sufficient to turn the scale of votes as in Atwell v. Merryweather, he said that it was difficult to see how four-tenths would not be sufficient. The trail Judge, however, treated it as a case where it was impossible for the independent majority to ratify the transaction. Counsel further submitted that there was no disclosure of this agreement between the company and Russell, although there ought to be full and complete disclosure. Ex. “G” did not give a full and complete disclosure. There was disclosure in “G” itself of the terms of the agreement of the Eastern Mining and Rubber Co. and Russell and Co. “G” did not disclose the full consideration taken by Russell and Co., or the amount of consideration which they got. It was really misleading and tricky. Apparently a number of Chinese got shares which, in fact really went to Russell and Co. There was no evidence that its terms were similar to the terms upon which the company agreed to acquire the property in November. On the face of it it was a disclosure to one of the directors of the company. He then drew attention to another point. He said that the agreement to acquire was made on November 23. The shares were allotted on January 31, but the actual agreement was not signed until June 10, but by section 88 of the Company’s Enactment an agreement had to be filed immediately and this agreement could not have been and was not filed until after June 10. Therefore it was evident that section 88 of the company’s Enactment was not complied with. Referring to the case of Foss v Horbuckle, Counsel said that in that case there were allegations of fraud and fraudulent and illegal transactions. Notwithstanding these allegations, however, the Vice Chancellor held that the company, and only the company, was the proper plaintiff. He held that if the majority of shareholders wished to sue the company must sue and that in that case the acts complained of were capable of confirmation by a majority. Those were the two grounds for the judge’s decision. Therefore, that case was entirely distinguishable from the present case. The Judge decided this case as if all the acts were intra vires and sanctioned by the shareholders, and every act sanctioned was properly sanctioned. Counsel referred to further authorities on the rule after which court adjourned until tomorrow morning. (1118 words)(Not yet found in M.M.)

The Straits Times, 15 June 1923, Page 9 0.  PECK-RUSSELL SUIT. 0. Legal Argument Continued At Kuala Lumpur. 0. (From Our Own Correspondent.) 0. Kuala Lumpur, June 14. 0. The argument in the Peck-Russell appeal was continued in the Appeal Court, this morning. Sir Lionel Woodward, C.J.C., presided, and was supported on the bench by Messrs. Justices Watson and McCabe Reay. Mr. H.D. Mundell, of Singapore, assisted by Mr. Harte Lovelace, of Lovelace and Hastings, appeared for the appellant, and Mr. M. J. Upcott, of Singapore, assisted by Mr. E.D. Shearn of Pooley and Co., appeared for the first and second defendant respondents, while Mr. Ivens, of Bannon and Bailey, appeared for the third defendant respondent. Continuing his address this morning, Mr. Mundell said that he proposed shortly to put before their Lordships the law relating to the question of whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action and whether it was of such a character as would entitle plaintiff to sue. Mr. Upcott had told them that he was prepared to admit that if the plaint alleged an ultra vires transaction, and by that he meant one incapable of adoption of by an independent majority, the plaintiff could sue. He supposed that meant a cause of action in the plaint. He observed, however, that in that admission Mr. Upcott did not mean a transaction that was capable of adoption by an independent majority. It was necessary, therefore, for him to explain what he meant. By an ultra vires transaction to the company he meant a transaction which a whole body of shareholders could by no means adopt. That was quite a different thing to a transaction intra vires to the company, but incapable of adoption by an independent majority. A transaction ultra vires to the independent majority was simply a transaction in respect of which it was inequitable for a majority to bind a minority. He submitted that nearly all the cases he cited on the exceptions were examples of such ultra vires transactions. He said further that he did not want it supposed for a moment that in this case he attacked the contract. He did not attack it and he did not submit that the contract was ultra vires to the company or ultra vires in any sense of the word. What he attacked was the secret profit made. He then went on to refer their Lordships to the law relating to secret profits and submitted that upon authorities the real question for their Lordships to decide was, was the nature of the transaction as alleged by the plaintiff? That made the question of disclosure a very important one. Did exhibit G show there was disclosure which Sir Arthur Adams said there was? Having regard to the actual facts, he submitted that the exhibit was a false and fraudulent document. It showed that Russell and Co. only got 3,000 shares out of the 80,000 and it also showed a number of Chinese, all resident in Singapore, apparently getting varying amounts of shares, which were actually Mr. Russell’s or his firm’s. Various facts tended to show that the document was intended to mislead. On the non-disclosure alone, this profit which Russell and Co. acquired could not be retained by them and that was quite apart from the question of fraud in regard to the option. The fraud was denied in this case and they had to decide the question whether it was just and equitable for the majority to bind the minority. He submitted that from the allegations in the plaint it was just. Mr. Mundell having concluded. Mr. Upcott addressed the Court. He said that what the Court was asked to decide was whether the plaint disclosed any cause for action in the present plaintiff. If the answer to this issue was “yes” then there was the question of evidence and the case must come up for trial. If the answer was “no” then by all means look to any admission, but plaintiff, he suggested, would look in vain for a cause of action embodied by the defence. If the plaintiff was reduced to looking for a cause of action in the defence he had no danger to fear. In order to have a cause of action the plaintiff had to allege either a wrong by Mr. Russell or Russell and Co. which the Malayan Collieries could not condone even by an independent majority, or a control by Mr. Russell or Russell and Co. of the majority of shares of Malayan Collieries. The position was abundantly clear. If this alleged wrong could not be condoned even by an independent majority this appeal must succeed. That was what he submitted. The second point of control of shares by Mr. Russell only came in if the wrong was condoned. In other words, the absence of the company as a plaintiff had got to be accounted for by allegations. This transaction had to be ultra vires, then there was an end to his case, or intra vires which event the plaintiff could only sue by showing a fraud in the exercise of the powers. He had got to say: If you do exercise the powers you must defraud the minority. Continuing, he said that the company, by an independent majority, could condone fraud. That brought out the whole argument between Mr. Mundell and himself. Mr. Mundell said that an ultra vires majority meant where it was inequitable for even an independent majority to bind the minority, but his submission was that it never could be inequitable for an independent majority to adopt an intra vires transaction. Mr. Upcott then went on to examine the allegations in the plaint and see whether they made out a wrong not condoned by the majority. He discussed whether this transaction was uncondoned by an independent majority and maintained that it was not. Dealing with the plaint counsel said that paragraph 19 did not allege facts which would make the option initially and throughout the property of the company. Plaintiff’s proposition was that Mr. Russell employed Hong Guan to obtain this option for Malayan Collieries, therefore the option belonged to Malayan Collieries all along and it was fraudulent of Mr. Russell to take it to himself. He contended, however that apart from the mandate or circumstances making Mr. Russell or his firm trustees, it was quite open to them to change their minds, and take the option for themselves (Mr. Russell or his firm.) The argument is proceeding. (1085 words)      (Not seen in MM)

The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser (1884-1942), 15 June 1923, Page 6 Mr. D. A. Simons, Factory Engineer, of Malayan Matches Ltd., will shortly be leaving that firm.

LETTER FROM: - J. A. Russell & Co. TO: - The District Office, Kinta, Batu Gajah. 29th June, 1923 Kuala Lumpur, 29th June 1923. Sir, We have the honour to refer to your correspondence K.L.O. 223/18 on the subject of the re-arrangement of the shop lots at the corner of Anderson Street and Hume Street, Ipoh. 2. We now wish to erect 5 shop houses on the re-arranged Hume Street lots but the Asst: Building Inspector, Ipoh has informed us that until one shop house facing Anderson Street has been demolished and all boundary stones are fixed we cannot proceed with building. 3. The shop house in Anderson Street has now been demolished and we would ask you to have the boundary stones fixed; although the re-survey was completed towards the end of 1919 and survey fees paid, stones apparently were not fixed owing to the fact that a shop house occupied the area we were surrendering to Government for a back lane to Hume Street. We have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servants, J. A. Russell and Co. From National Archives of Malaysia. Kinta Land Office. 395/23 Transcribed by P.C.

The Straits Times 2 July 1923 page 8 PARTNERSHIP DISPUTE F.O.O.C. K.L. July 2 Ng Hong Guan of Singapore, has filed a plaint in the Kuala Lumpur Supreme Court against J. A. Russell, chairman of Malayan Collieries, in which he claims $500,000, alleged partnership profits in proportion of one third and two thirds shares from the resale on the Borneo Colliery option of October 5, 1920 to the Malayan Collieries. Messrs. Freeman and Madge, of Kuala Lumpur and Messrs. Braddell Brothers of Singapore are plaintiff’s lawyers

The Straits Times, 3 July 1923, Page 11  Agricultural Show. Large Crowds Visit Exhibition At Kuala Lumpur. (From Our Own Correspondent.) Kuala Lumpur, July 1 Extract: “Messrs. H.B. Tallalla and Co.’s stand was prettily decorated and no one visiting the show could have failed to notice it, centrally situated facing the lawn. Hundreds of people were here supplied with free cigarettes and Malayan Matches.”

Untitled [Articles] The Straits Times, 4 July 1923, Page 8  It is now announced that, as the Council of the F.M.S. Chamber of Mines have been informed that the night mail trains will not be running: between Ipoh and Kuala Lumpur in July, they have decided to postpone the visit to the Malayan Collieries, which had been fixed for July 15 next. (68 words)

[Letters] The Straits Times, 13 July 1923, Page 10 Matches and Bricks. To the Editor of the Straits Times. Sir, Being interested in two industrial flotation’s in Kuala Lumpur, to wit, Malayan Matches and Sand Lime Bricks, I am most anxious to know if these concern are still to the fore as one hardly ever hears a thing about them. “Matches” are quoted at somewhere around 7 cents per share and “Bricks” so far as one can gather are “dead.” To the speculator who has the interest of local and F.M.S. propositions at heart this is sad outlook indeed and one cannot but think there has been culpable neglect somewhere. With “ Matches” we had a glowing prospectus, supported by promises of Government protection in the matter of an import tax on all outside manufacturers coming into the F.M.S. High grade men were to be engaged, some were actually taken on the staff, but results were wretched in the extreme, at least as far as one can gather? I understand that one of the experts, probably the first engaged, came to Singapore and in co-operation with Chinese help has put up and run to a successful issue an up to date Match Factory. Now this is most peculiar. A good man is allowed to slip out and nothing is done since he resigned or was dispensed with, at least one cannot hear of any great strides having been made since that period in the history of the Company. Shareholders are all dead losers as far as can be seen to date. “Sand lime bricks” started operations with great promise, and those who came up with the cash in support of local industry were sure that with promises of Government orders galore, and local support they were onto a good thing! Alas for our found hopes- the sand was found unsuitable for making bricks or some such twaddle as that ad experiments were entered into to find new supplies, but up to date where are we? The factory stands idle, another white elephant on the long road of half cooked F.M.S. efforts. Surely something can be done to make good all the promises held out in the original glowing prospectus matter, so boldly held out as sprats to catch unwary mackerel. It says very little for the promoters of both mentioned propositions that so little has been done in the interests of shareholders, and I think it is up to those responsible for the floatation’s to come forward with some real and tangible data as to why the promises made have not fructified. No matter how the varnish is laid on, there would appear to be no real excuse possible why two concerns so well supported by local and F.M.S. capital should be in such a moribund condition. So far as I am concerned, not another cent of my money will ever be placed in any industrial flotation in the Federated Malay States and I think it will be found that there are others in plenty of the same mind as myself! -Yours etc. TWICE BITTEN ETC. ETC. (503 words)

Page 7 Advertisements Column 2 [Advertisements] The Straits Times, 17 July 1923, Page 7 and Page 16 Advertisements Column 1 [Advertisements] The Straits Times, 19 July 1923, Page 16 MALAYAN COLLERIES, LTD. 0. Notice of Declaration of Share Dividend No 11 and Closure of Share Registers. 0. Notice is hereby given the Directors have today declared a First Interim Dividend of 5 per cent in respect of the year ending December 31, 1923, payable on 31st instant. Dividend Warrants will be posted on 31st instant. Notice is also hereby given that the Share Registers of the company will be closed from Wednesday July 25 to Tuesday July 31, both days inclusive, for the purpose of preparing necessary Dividends warrants. By Order of the Board, J.A. Russell and Co., Secretary. Kula Lumpur F.M.S. July 11, 1923… etc

LETTER FROM: -J. A. Russell & Co. TO: - The Collector of Land Revenue, Ipoh. 17th July, 1923 Kuala Lumpur, 17th July, 1923. Sir, We have the honour to refer to our letter of the 26th February when we forwarded you our cheque for $578/70 being rent for 1923 on our Ipoh property. 2. We omitted to include the rent on C.T. 1418 and in the letter requested you to let us know what the amount due was as the title had been subdivided and part of the land sold to the Government. 3. We have had no reply to our enquiry and now we find our agent in Ipoh has paid your Notice of Demand for $33/80 rent on C. T. 1418 and notice fee 0.50 cents. 4. We do not understand how a Demand Notice was issued for C. T. 1418 as this title does not exist, having been surrendered, and we, therefore, must ask for a refund of the $34/30 paid by our Agent. 5. Will you please let us know the rent due on the land originally held under C. T. 1418 excluding the area sold to the Government. We have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servants, J. A. Russell and Co. Notes Underneath Forwarded. The title is still in the name of J. A. Russell in my rent book. In the Index the title is still in the name of J. A. Russell. From National Archives of Malaysia. Kinta Land Office. 633/21. Transcribed by P.C.

SOCIAL AND PERSONAL. [Articles] 0. The Straits Times, 19 July 1923, Page 8 0. SOCIAL AND PERSONAL. Mr. J. A. Russell, of Kuala Lumpur, sailed yesterday by the P. and O. steamer Malwa for London on a holiday

Untitled [Articles] The Straits Times, 19 July 1923, Page 8 In the Trengganu Supreme Court the Judge, Che Nik Mohamad bin Hitam, has given judgment in the case of A. H. Tengku Ngah Aysha Petrie, of Trengganu, against Ng Hong Guan, of Singapore, in which plaintiff claimed quit and tribute on an agreement dated April 20, 1916, signed in the presence of the Sultan Zainal Abidin, of Tengganu. Plaintiff, who was represented by Cheak bin Alias Wakil was awarded $2,820.80, and if defendant failed to settle within thirty days the court would be at liberty to sell by public auction his goods in the possession of the district commissioner at Pocca.

0. 0. Untitled [Articles] 0. The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser (1884-1942), 23 July 1923, Page 6 Mr. J. A. Russell left for Home by s.s. Malwa.

The Straits Times, 23 July 1923, Page 9 Malayan Collieries. Decision in Peck-Russell Appeal Case. (From Our Own Correspondent.) Kuala Lumpur, July 23. In the Supreme Court this morning, judgment was given in the Peck- Russell appeal case. 0. Sir Lionel Woodward delivered a lengthy judgment, allowing Mr. Peck's appeal. Justices Watson and McCabe Reay concurred. 0. Argument in connection with costs is proceeding. 0. 0. The chief defendant in the action Peck v. Russell is Mr. J. A. Russell, of J. A. Russell and Co., Kuala Lumpur. Mr. Russell is a director and his firm are secretaries and managing agents of Malayan Collieries Limited. Mr. F. Peck is a shareholder in that company, and he brings the action to recover profits of large amount which he alleges to have been improperly made by the chief defendant in connection with an option for the purchase of certain colliery properties in the Dutch East Indies. Mr. Peck ‘s contention is that the option was obtained for Malayan Collieries, Ltd., and that defendant had no right to any special profit on the transaction. The defendant answers by declaring that the option was obtained by and for his firm and was sold to Malayan Collieries in the ordinary course of the firm’s business. The point on which the appeal just decided took place is subsidiary to the main issue just described. Briefly, the defendant stated that the right to sue, was solely in the company, and that the company had by special resolutions decided not to take action, and that, therefore Mr. Peck had no locus standi, but was bound by the decision of a majority of the shareholders of the company. In opposition to this, Mr. Peck contended that by reason of the defendant Russell holding or controlling a majority of shares, the company was rendered incapable of exercising its functions for protection of the interests of the independent shareholders. In the lower court Mr. Justice Farrer-Manby found against Mr. Peck, hence the appeal.

MALAYAN COLLIERIES CASE. [Articles] The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser (1884-1942), 24 July 1923, Page 6  0. MALAYAN COLLIERIES CASE. MR. PECK'S RIGHT TO SUE ADMITTED. 0. (From Our Own Correspondent). 0. Kuala Lumpur, July 23. 0. The F.M.S. Court of Appeal gave judgment this morning on the question of the right to sue in the Peck vs. Russell case. 0. The Court was composed of Sir Lionel Woodward, Chief Judicial etc. (179 words)

MALAYAN COLLIERIES. [Articles] 0. The Straits Times, 24 July 1923, Page 9 0. MALAYAN COLLIERIES. 0. Judgment in Peck-Russell Case. 0. Appeal Allowed with Costs. 0. (From Our Own Reporter.) 0. Kuala Lumpur, July 23. 0. Judgment was given in the F.M.S. Court of Appeal, Kuala Lumpur, to-day, in the appeal of Mr. F. C. Peck against a decision of Mr. Justice Farrer-Manby in an action against Mr. J. A. Russell, Messrs. Russell and Co., and the Malayan Collieries, Ltd. The appeal was allowed and the decree set aside, appellant being granted the costs of the appeal and those of the court below. 0. Sir Lionel Woodwood, Chief Judicial Commissioner, presided and was accompanied by Mr. Justice Watson and Mr. Justice McCabe Reay. The counsel present were Mr. H. D. Mundell, for the appellant; Mr. E. D. Shearn for the first and second respondents, and Mr. F. B. Ivens for the third respondent. 0. In the course of his judgment Sir Lionel Woodward said:- This is an appeal from a decree declaring (inter alia) that the plaint discloses no cause of action. Leave is given to amend the plaint in the manner indicated, on payment of costs up to the date of amendment. In default of such payment, the action is to stand dismissed with costs. The procedure prescribed by the Code seems to have been ignored in the Court below. The question of the rejection of the plaint on the ground that it discloses no cause for action should be raised at an early stage, before the settlement of the issues. In this case it was not raised till the action came on for hearing on the summons for final disposal. Issues, if settled at all, should be settled on the return of a summons for settlement of issue. When they have been so settled the Court has power to finally dispose of the suit at that stage, but only if satisfied that no further argument or evidence than the parties can at once adduce is required and that no injustice will result from proceeding with the suit forthwith. 0. Here two issues were first submitted necessitating an investigation of the facts, and after three days of argument the Court framed four issues, on which decisions were given, and thus the question whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action became involved with other questions of fact and law, the learned trial judge holding that he was entitled to consider both the plaint and its attached documents and the defence and its attached documents and also the articles of association of the defendant company. In effect he decided the case on the plaint and statement of defence and gave findings on contested facts as to which the plaintiff might have called further evidence. 0. The second of the issues framed by the Court was “ Does the plaint disclose a cause of action in the present plaintiff?” That I think covers the whole ground, and if the answer is in the affirmative, this appeal ought to succeed and the plaintiff be allowed to proceed to trail. 0. The allegations in the plaint disclose a fraudulent transaction on the part of the first defendant, a director, and the second defendant, the agents and secretaries of the company, which has caused injury to the company as a body, and to the individual shareholders, of whom the plaintiff is one. It is alleged that the first and second defendants own or control 70,296 shares out of 310,000 and that 77,000 more shares have been allotted to them and their nominees under the agreement referred to in the plaint, and that the directors of the company have refused to take action against the first and second defendants, and are endeavoring to obtain a majority vote from the shareholders to the effect that no action should be taken. 0. That was the position at the time the plaint was filed in September, 1922, but as the learned judge has not confined himself to the allegations in the plaint, we learn from the judgment that subsequently to the filling of the plaint the company passed a resolution to the effect anticipated. As the voting did not take place till after the plaint was filed it was not possible to set out this resolution. The plaint itself alleges only the endeavors of the directors to secure such a resolution. 0. In the judgment the learned judge thus set out the plaintiffs case. He says: - “Now the plaintiff’s case is that the defendant Russell acquired on behalf of the company some valuable property and he put in his own pocket the difference between the prices paid to the original owners and the price paid by the company as if he were a stranger and had bought for himself and resold to the Company. If the pleadings disclose such a state of affairs then there can be no doubt that the plaintiff has the right to prove it, because the property would be ab initio the property of the company and any resolution by the shareholders condoning such a thing would be ultra vires, because they could not give away the assets of the company against the wishes of a single dissentient shareholder. Every corporator has an interest in the assets of his corporation.” 0. It would seem then that the learned judge would have decided in the plaintiff’s favour if he had only considered the plaint, as I think he should have done. I do not agree that his statement of the plaintiff’s case is correct. The plaint alleges in effect that when Ng Hong Gaun acquired the option in question, it was in equity the company’s property, and the first defendant, the chairman of directors, wrongfully caused Ng Hong Guan to transfer it to second defendants, the company’s managing agents and secretaries, who purported to sell it to the company at a large profit, without full disclosure of the circumstances. The allegation was it was sold to the company by the managing agents and secretaries is of importance for one reason, at all events, because the learned judge held that article 92 of the articles of association applied, under which a director is not disqualified by his office from contracting with the company, provided there is full disclosure of the nature of his interest in the contract but it would seem prima facie that this would not apply to the second defendants, of whose relations with the company we only know from the plaint that they are managing agents and secretaries. We do not know what their duties were to the company, or whether under the circumstances alleged they could sell to the company without a breach of duty. 0. Then, citing a passage from the judgment in Mc Dougall v. Gardener, the learned judge holds in effect that the rule as laid down in Foss v. Harbottle, Mozley v. Alston and Lord v. the Governor and Company of Copper Miners, should be applied in this case, in other words that the dispute is a question of internal management with which the court should decline to interfere at the instance of the minority. He refers to the ratification of the transaction, which the plaint attacks, by the majority of the company, and to article 92 of the articles of association, and holds that there was no illegality in such ratification nor anything oppressive on the part of the majority, in the absence of specific allegations in the claim that the majority were controlled in their voting by the first defendant. Now Mr. Upcott has admitted in argument before us that if the plaint alleges an ultra vires transaction, that is one incapable of adoption even by an independent majority, a cause of action is shown by the plaint as it now stands, and this appeal must succeed. But he contends that no such transaction is disclosed. The plaint alleges, he says, only a fraudulent transaction which it is within the power of the company to condone. That being so, he contends that there is no cause of action, in the absence of an allegation that the wrong doers, the first and second defendants, control a majority of votes. In other words he says that plaintiff must show either an ulta vires transaction, or if it is intra vires, that the minority are being defrauded owing to the wrong- doers holding or controlling the majority of the votes. 0. An ultra vires transaction Mr. Upcott submits is something illegal, which is beyond the power of the whole body of shareholders to adopt, such a transaction, in fact, as is referred to by Lord Justice Rigby, in his judgment in Kaye v. Croydon Tramways, where he says, “ What is the meaning of an ultra vires contract? It is one which the company has no legal power to carry into effect at all, even although in the opinion of each and every shareholder it is a contract advantageous to the company and to them, and though each individual shareholder being fully competent to agree for himself approves of and agrees with it”. Mr. Mundell admits that the plaint does not disclose an ultra vires transaction in that sense, but he contends that there is a difference between a transaction which is ultra vires the company as a whole and one which is ultra vires an independent majority. He argues on the authority of reported cases that a matter which might be ultra vires the company becomes beyond the power of an independent majority to condone if it is inequitable and deprives the majority of its rights and that is the test which should be applied. 0. His Lordship then dealt with the authorities cited by counsel and proceeded as follows: 0. On the whole I come to the conclusion that the plaint in this case does sufficiently disclose cause of action to allow of the plaintiff to proceeding to trial. It alleges a fraudulent transaction on the part of the chairman of directors and the managing agents and secretaries, including a dealing with the unissued share capital whereby the latter obtained a large profit, without full disclosure to the shareholders. It alleges that the directors had refused to take action against the wrong- doers and that there is a probability that through their efforts there would be a majority against any such action being taken. It does not specifically allege that the wrong doers control the majority of the votes but I am not sure that that is necessary under the circumstances. I am not sure that Mr. Mundell’s contention is not right that there may be cases in which a plaintiff representing a minority may sue, when the transaction is such that though it may be legally condoned by the whole body of shareholders, still it would be inequitable for a majority to force it on the minority and deprive them of their just rights. I do not think a difficult point like this should be decided at this stage. I think it would be much safer to decide it after all the facts have been investigated. 0. The court will then be in a better position to judge whether the rule in Foss v. Harbottle should be applied, or whether the case is one of the exceptions. In most if not all of the cases decided subsequently to Mason v. Harris the points raised in this appeal were raised at the trail of the action, when all of the facts were before the court, not in the proceedings analogous to demurrer proceedings. And so in this case, I think there should be a trial. The plaintiff knows the risk of failure, he may not be able to prove he is entitled to any relief, or he may be entitled to some form of relief other than that which he asks for. But as he wishes for a trail I think he should have one. 0. If there is a trial, the questions which have been argued here will come up again for argument, and I do not wish to be understood as having decided any of them, except that I think the decree is wrong in declaring that the plaint discloses no action and in dismissing the action in default of payment of costs and the submission of the amendments within the time stated. 0. With regard to the amendment proposed by Mr. Mundell, I understand he asks us to allow it in order to safeguard his position, in case, before anther tribunal and with other counsel, the admission made by Mr. Upcott which I have already referred to should be withdrawn. I do not say that the plaint as it now stands is defective. On the contrary it seems to me most skillfully drawn. At any rate if there is any defect in it it has to be remembered that a plaint under our procedure is not required to be drawn with the exactitude which one would look for in a well drawn statement of claim. All that the law requires in it, besides the formal parts, is a plain and concise statement of the circumstances constituting the cause of action and where and when it arose. I think the plaint complies with that requirement, but the amendment asked for will not prejudice any one. It could have been allowed by the trial judge. It would seem form the record that some amendment was asked for in the court below though not perhaps the one now proposed. I see no good reason for refusing it. I think this appeal should be allowed and the decree set aside. 0. Unanimous agreement. 0. Mr. Justice Watson: I have nothing to add to this judgment, with which I fully concur. 0. Mr. Justice McCabe Reay: I think that the appeal should be allowed. Even if it is granted that there is an element of doubt regarding the principles to be derived from the reported cases, the appeal should nevertheless succeed, because the plaintiff should not be shut out from the courts except on the clearest grounds 0. Discussion About Costs. 0. Mr. Mundell asked for the costs of the appeal and the costs of the court below. He pointed out that it had always been the practice when a demurrer was overruled to order payment of costs against him. 0. Mr. Shearn said that as his Lordship had held that nobody was prejudiced by the amendment he could not argue on that point. With regard to the general costs of the appeal and of the court below, he asked that an order be made that the costs here and below should be costs in the cause. He quoted a case which he submitted was analogous to the present one, and in which his Lordship held that the facts should be heard in order to see whether this was a fraud capable of condonation. He asked that the practice should be followed in this case, and that the costs should be reserved. 0. Sir Lionel Woodward said that the plaintiff had succeeded on the issue, which was whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action or not. 0. Mr. Shearn argued that this was not an issue for the purpose of costs. 0. Mr. Justice Watson said that the defendants had attempted to block the plaintiff’s right of action and had failed. Why should the plaintiff pay the costs? 0. Mr. Shearn: I do not ask that. I ask that the costs should be reserved in order to see whether the hypothesis on which he has succeeded is correct. 0. Sir Lionel Woodward: he has succeeded. You have tried to block his way and he has cleared you out. He ought to be in exactly the same position as he was before you raised the obstacle. 0. Mr. Justice McCabe Reay: here is a clear cut issue of law on a preliminary point, having no connection with the object of the suit. 0. Mr. Shearn said that because the plaintiff had succeeded in this issue he had not succeed in obtaining judgment, and had not succeeded on an issue for purpose of costs. 0. Mr. Justice McCabe Reay: Does not the decision mean, give the plaintiff a very real right of relief, or must you construe this relief in the sense of money? 0. Mr. Shearn: The right to relief for the purpose of costs appears to be the right to judgment or the right to dismissal of the case. 0. Mr. Justice McCabe Reay: Supposing that eventually the plaintiff failed. He could not have the costs of this issue? 0. Mr. Shearn: No, my Lord 0. Mr. Justice McCabe Reay: Surely there are hundreds of cases where plaintiffs have been given the costs of one issue, or two or all issues. 0. Mr. Shearn argued that in these cases every separate issue was an issue for the purpose of costs and for all purposes. In this case the decision of the court gave the plaintiff no right to judgment. 0. Mr. Justice Watson: You are really too late in taking objection to the plaint. That rather puts you out of court with regards costs. 0. Mr. Shearn replied that this point had not been raised by the other side, and that was not a point that he had had to meet. 0. Sir. Lionel Woodward said the court was entirely against Mr. Shearn up to that point. They all thought an order should be made entitling appellant to the costs of the appeal and of the court below. 0. Mr. Mundell submitted that although the first and second defendants should really pay the costs, the company ought to repay to him the money that he had paid in the court below. 0. Mr. Shearn said he though the correct order would be that the first and second defendants should pay the plaintiff’s costs including the third defendant’s costs. His instructions were to agree to such an order. 0. Mr. Mundell agreed to that, and added that if the undertaking was given to return the money that plaintiff had paid he would be satisfied. 0. Mr. Shearn: I have given that undertaking. 0. Sir. Lionel Woodward: The costs paid by the appellant to the third respondent would be returned? 0. Mr. Shearn: The costs paid to all respondents would be returned. 0. The statement that the costs of the applicant would be paid by the first and second defendant, including the costs of the third defendant, having been repeated, the proceedings closed. 0. 0. (3056 words)

Federated Malay States. [Articles] The Straits Times, 28 July 1923, Page 10  . Federated Malay States. Points from Chief Secretary's Annual Report. A recent supplement to the F.M.S. Government Gazette contained the annual report, for 1923 of the Chief Secretary, the Hon. Mr. W. Maxwell, C M.G. (Extract: The production of coal from Malayan Collieries, Limited, Selangor, showed a slight decrease during the year, the output being 281,828 tons against 299,351 tons in 1921. The Government Railways were the largest consumers and took 54%, the mines took 25% 12% was exported and 9 % was consumed at the Collieries. The hydraulic system was extended, and is proving satisfactory.) (2294 words)

Letter from Bannon and Bailey to Hon Mr. A. N. Kenion. July 31 1923 Dear Sir,-An application for discovery of documents will shortly be made by the plaintiff. We are writing to know what you wish us to do about the report of the referees which is in our possession. If you wish it we will claim that the document is privileged but the courts may hold that it is not, and that the plaintiff is entitled to discovery.-Yours faithfully. (Sgd.) Bannon and Bailey .Mr. Kenion’s reply was as follows:- Dear Sirs,-The case submitted to us was ex parte. Mr. Bannon will recollect the preliminary discussion which took place as to whether the referees sitting and hearing the case would (a) serve any useful purpose, (b) be a contempt of court seeing that a plaintiff was out. In these circumstances it was decided that the three referees were to act more in an advisory capacity to the independent directors to assist the legal advisors in arriving at an opinion (not necessarily on the law, though Mr. Bannon was good enough to say my assistance as a lawyer would be of considerable assistance to him) as to what view independent persons took of the matter. If you agree that this is so it seems to me the document is privileged as a document connected with the preparation of the defence of the independent directors. The report to a large extent discloses Mr. Russell’s defence and evidence on which it is based. I should imagine he could strongly object. (Sgd.) A.N. Kenion.THE MALAY MAIL, SATURDAY, MARCH 22ND, 1924

MALAYAN COLLIERIES. [Articles] The Straits Times, 8 August 1923, Page 9 MALAYAN COLLIERIES. Application for Leave to Appeal To Privy Council. (From Our Own Correspondent.) Kuala Lumpur, August 7. In the Supreme Court this morning Mr. E. D. Shearn, on behalf of the first, and second defendants respondents at the Peck-Russell case, made application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council, against the decision of the F.M.S. Court of Appeal. Mr. Roland Braddell, of Singapore, with Mr. Harte Lovelace, of Kuala Lumpur, appeared for the appellant. His Lordship referred the matter to the next court of appeal. The special telegram with reference to the Peck-Russell case as sent by our Kuala Lumpur Correspondent which appeared in Fridays’ issue of the Straits Times was slightly in error in that it stated that Messrs. Bannon and Bailey on behalf of the third defendant-respondents had filed the necessary papers for leave to appeal to the Privy Council. The third defendant-respondents are not appealing, but only the first and second defendant respondents.

Untitled [Articles] The Straits Times, 9 August 1923, Page 8  and Untitled [Articles] The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser (1884-1942), 10 August 1923, Page 7  The F.M.S. Chamber of Mines will pay its deferred visit to the Malayan Collieries during October. At the same time a Council meeting will be held.

Malayan Collieries Case. [Articles] The Straits Times 9 August 1923 page 9, the chief Judicial Commissioner had before him on Tuesday an application by the first and second respondents (Mr. J.A. Russell and J. A. Russell and Co.) in the action brought against them by Mr. F. C Peck on behalf of himself and other shareholders in Malayan Collieries, Ltd., for leave to appeal to his Majesty the King in Council against the judgement of the court of appeal delivered recently. The application was postponed for the consideration of the next court of appeal. On the question of costs, reports the Malay Mail, his Lordship ordered that the first and second respondents should pay the costs of the plaintiff and third respondent (The Malayan Collieries Ltd.) in the appeal court.

MALAYAN COLLIERIES CASE. [Articles] The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser , 9 August 1923, Page 6 MALAYAN COLLIERIES CASE. (From Our Own Correspondent) Kuala Lumpur. Aug.8 In the Malayan Collieries case the first and second respondents, J. A. Russell and Russell and Company, applied to the Chief Judicial Commissioner for leave to appeal to the Privy Council against the recent judgment of the Court of Appeal the application being postponed to the next Court of Appeal. His Lordship ordered the first and second defendants to pay the plaintiff’s costs in the Appeal Court and the third defendant, the Collieries Company, to pay the costs of the Appeal Court and the costs below. (79 words)

SEPTEMBER 0. SOCIAL AND PERSONAL. [Articles] 0. The Straits Times, 3 September 1923, Page 8 SOCIAL AND PERSONAL. 0. Mr. J. A. Russell was expected to leave England on Saturday by the P. and O. Malwa, by which he travelled home, and should be back in Kuala Lumpur on September 26.

SOCIAL AND PERSONAL. [Articles] 0. The Straits Times, 5 September 1923, Page 8 SOCIAL AND PERSONAL 0. In connection with the announcement that Mr. J. A. Russell intended returning to the East by the Malwa, due in Singapore on the 26th inst, we are informed that Mr. Russell’s movements are uncertain. In any case he is not returning by the Malwa.

Untitled [Articles] (24 words) The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser 10 September 1923 page 7 We hear that Mr. J. A. Russell is not returning by the Malwa as stated in our issue on Saturday, says the Malay Mail.

The Straits Times, 15 September 1923, Page 8  0. Miri, Sarawak, is not the only place where there has been trouble between Chinese and national labour. The Malay Mail is informed by the Secretaries that Malayan Collieries have had a similar experience on their Borneo coal field; the trouble has now been settled and the mine is working smoothly again. (51 words)

The Malay Mail, Wednesday, September 19, 1923,p. 9 Malayan Collieries Troubles All Chinese Labour to be Deported. Dutch Authorities Serious Action. The following communication is made to us (says the Straits Times) by a professional man who has interests in the Dutch East Indies. We have been unable to verify all the statements, but the matters referred to seem to require careful investigation- especially by the Dutch Indies Authorities, who cannot expect foreign capital to flow into the country if it is exposed to such action as the correspondent describes: - Labour troubles have been of frequent occurrence during the past few months and some of them have been of a serious nature. First we had the Chinese coolies on the Miri Oilfields, then two months ago the Chinese miners causing trouble at the Pamoekan Bay Coalfield, when the Government and armed police arrived in time to prevent a serious situation developing. Two weeks ago, a general strike took place on the Parapathan Coal Mine, belonging to the K.P.M. and the directors of the Company had to give in, in order to prevent production falling. Sequel to a Murder. Only a few days ago another serious outbreak took place at the Pamoekan Bay Coalfield. It appears that a Javanese coolie was murdered by the Chinese, and the result was that the armed police, who fortunately were still in the district were compelled to fire, and six Chinese were killed and 14 were injured. The most serious thing is that the Dutch local authorities will not allow in future any further Chinese coolies to be imported into the mine and they also insist that all the present Chinese coolies on the property, who number about 600, must be deported at once. Now this action appears to be very unfair viz: - 1. The enormous cost per head of importation, f50 each, and very probably £100 in a few weeks’ time. 2. The great injustice that good coolies have to suffer along with the bad ones. 3. That Pamoekan Bay is not allowed to have Chinese labour while other Dutch companies, such as the Deli Tobacco Co. the Balikpapan Oilfields etc. are using them in large numbers. 4. The coal output must be seriously reduced by the want of skilled labour. The Pamoekan Bay is not an open port and therefore only Dutch steamers have a free hand to call. Steamers flying a foreign flag, however, can be chartered for the transportation of coal only to ports outside the Nederland East Indies. Coal for Sourabaia and Macassar, for instance, would have to go first to Singapore. The Dutch law is very strong on this point and apparently these regulations are framed to assist the K.P.M. and other Dutch lines. K.P.M.’s Possible Monopoly. It must also be remembered that for every trip a foreign ship makes a permit must be obtained from the Resident at Bandjermassin before it is allowed to call at Pamoekan Bay, and that the Resident has the power to refuse such a permit. The result of a refusal of such a permit would be that K.P.M. would have the monopoly, and as they have amine of their own they would fix the rate at such a figure as to make it impossible for the mine to work at a profit. There are a numerous ways that the Dutch officials can create difficulties for any foreign mining or planting enterprise, and in this instance the question of an open port can prevent the mine being worked successfully. Although convinced that the Resident has no legal power to order the whole of the present Chinese labour to be deported, it would be dangerous to act against his wishes, on account of his extraordinary power, which I have already referred to. There is only one way to get over the difficulty and that is that Pamoekan Bay must be made an open port for a limited import and general export, in the same way as Saigen in Poaloe Laut was made when the German company worked there previous to the Government taking it over. The Governor-General has not the power to create an open port and only the Queen of Holland can do so. And it is up to the Malayan Collieries to use all their power in Holland. As long as the port is closed the company will be faced with endless difficulties. It is well known that the Dutch Government desire foreign capital to be invested in the Dutch East Indies, but the methods they adopt are such that they are driving out of the country and even the Dutch themselves are not keen about investing fresh capital in the East Indies on account of the extremely heavy produce and income-taxes some even with retroacting power.

CHETTY FORGERY CASE. [Articles] The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser (1884-1942), 21 September 1923, Page 12  CHETTY FORGERY CASE. NG HONG GLAN AND MR. RUSSELL Ng Hong Guan, who was the plaintiff in the litigation concerning the affairs of Malayan Collieries, which occupied the Kuala Lumpur Courts for a considerable time recently, was the principal witness called by the Crown at the Fifth Singapore Assizes yesterday, when the trial of A.R.S Veerappa Chetty, before Mr. Justice Barrett-Leonard and a special jury, was resumed. 0. (Chetty accused of forging promissory notes. Hong Guan had borrowed from the accused. Hong Guan had been short of money the last two years. HG is questioned about Legge. “ He was my friend at one time but Mr. Russell bought him over” “ Where you endeavouring to borrow money for the purpose of prosecuting a claim against Mr. Russell? - Yes. You borrowed money from the Chetties? - Yes, it was expensive litigation. I borrowed mostly from friends. You had a big claim against Mr. Russell? – Yes, for $500,000.” H. G admits he was “borrowing money all over the place”… “ His Lordship refused to allow a question as to whether the witness authorized Tan Kim Wah to negotiate a settlement with Mr. Russell.” Legge owed him money. There is an action pending against Legge. H.G is 26 years old. Case adjourned.) 0. 0. (1488 words)

* Definition of CHETTY : a member of a caste of Tamil moneylenders or merchants in southern India, Ceylon, Burma, Malaya, Fiji, and So. Africa

THE MALAY MAIL, THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 27TH, 1923. PECK V. RUSSELL Appeal Application Refused LENGTHY ARGUMENT BEFORE COURT OF APPEAL The application by Mr. J.A. Russell, and Messrs. J.A. Russell and Co., for leave to appeal to the Privy Council, Mr. Shearn stated before the Court of Appeal yesterday, was made under rule 2 of the schedule to the King’s Order in Council of 1921. Under the first paragraph of that rule an appeal would lie as a right if the amount involved was £500 or more; under the second paragraph it was provided that in its discretion the court could grant leave to appeal against any judgment, whether final or interlocutory, if in the opinion of the court the question involved was one of such general or public importance as to justify its submission to the Privy Council. The application was made under the first paragraph, namely, as a right from any final judgment. Sir Lionel Woodward: You say that the judgment you are appealing against is a final judgment? Mr. Shearn said that he would follow the argument addressed to the Privy Council in a case which was almost similar. In that case the court passed no opinion as to whether the judgment appealed from was final or not. If he failed under sub-section (a) he would ask the court to grant him leave under sub-section (b). He submitted that both in the court of the first instance and in the Appeal Court the proceedings in the case were considered as analogous to proceedings in a demurrer. That demurrer was overruled. The whole of the argument addressed to the court was on that understanding. He wanted to emphasise that point. Mr. Justice Watson remarked that counsel appeared to be Anticipating trouble. Mr. Shearn said that he understood that the application was being opposed, but if their lordships thought that he should make a formal application and then wait, he would do so. Sir Lionel Woodward did not think he was prepared at the moment to say whether the judgment appealed from was a final judgment or not. If it was not a final judgment the court had no discretion. If it was a final judgment the court had discretion. Mr. Shearn said he did not propose to keep their lordships very long. He argued that being analogous to demurrer proceedings, the judgment was always final for the purpose of appeal. He elaborated this argument at some length and cited several English authorities. In the course of his argument he pointed out that there were judgments which were against him, especially one judgment in particular which he was relieved to find had been subsequently discredited. Sir Lionel Woodward wanted to know what would happen if the application was allowed. Would the defendant apply for stay of proceedings until the point at issue was decided by the Privy Council? Mr. Shearn said that if the plaintiff so desired he could go on with the proceedings without waiting for the result. He would make no application to stay proceedings. Mr. Braddell offered the application. He said that what the court had to decide was whether the application was for leave to appeal from a final judgment or not, because it made all the difference in the world. The law was clearly laid down by the Privy Council in a recent case. In the course of the first appeal from the Irish Free State their lordships of the Privy Council said that they had nothing to do with politics or policies. They were merely a judicial tribunal, and they wanted the Irish Free State to understand clearly that they would give leave where the point was a matter of great public importance. Otherwise there would be so many applications that the court would not be in a position to perform its functions properly. This was reported in the last number of the Law Times Journal, for which he was much obliged to Mr. Ashworth Hope. He regretted he had no copy.

Peck-Russell Case. [Articles] 0. The Straits Times, 27 September 1923, Page 9 Peck-Russell Case. 0. Leave to Appeal to Privy Council Refused. 0. (From Our Own Correspondent.) 0. Kuala Lumpur, September 26. The application made by Mr. E.D. Shearn, on behalf of the first and second defendant-respondents in the case in which Mr. F. C. Peck, on behalf of himself and other shareholders of the Malayan Collieries Ltd., sues Mr. J. A. Russell, J. A. Russell and Co. and the Malayan Collieries, Ltd., for leave to appeal to the Privy council, came up for hearing to-day before the F.M.S. Court of Appeal, consisting of Sir Lionel Woodward, Chief Judicial Commissioner as president, with Mr. Justice Watson and Mr. Justice McCabe Reay. Mr. Roland Braddell of Singapore, for Mr. Peck opposed the application. 0. Mr. Shearn in a lengthy argument, submitted that it was a demurrer point that was urged on the court during the preliminary hearing and during the appeal, and as it was overruled, it became final for the purposes of the appeal. That being so, he had a right to appeal to the Privy Council. A remurrer (sic) point, he submitted, was always final for purposes of an appeal. He further submitted that if their Lordships were unwilling to decide whether it was a final judgment, it was one of sufficient public or general importance to be allowed to go to Privy Council. Mr. Shearn cited various authorities to support his contentions. 0. Mr. Bradell said that what the court had to decide was whether this was a final or interlocutory judgment. The order of the court was that the case should go to trail and in saying so the judgment became at once interlocutory. This application, therefore, must fail. Then they had to consider whether that appeal was of such great general or public importance as to be permitted to go to Privy Council. A demurrer point, it was not, although a large sum of money was involved. If that sort of thing was allowed, he said, any rich litigant could harass one who had not many funds. This was, he submitted, a most vexatious application and quite unnecessary. It was well known that at the Chancery side in England litigation can be hung up for many years by continual interlocutory applications and appeals and further appeals and then more interlocutory applications. There were innumerable decisions which could be quoted to show that this particular order was beyond all dispute an interlocutory order. He submitted that to allow them to go to Privy Council would be a great injustice to the plaintiff as it would enable them to spend the plaintiff’s money uselessly because everything they wanted to go to Privy Council about was opened to them at the actual trail. The only possibility, said counsel in conclusion, why they wanted to go to Privy Council was to keep Mr. Russell out of the witness box and to use up the plaintiff’s money. It was well known that Mr. Peck was acting on subscriptions from shareholders and the amount was nothing like the wealth at the disposal of Mr. Russell. The application was not only interlocutory, but vexatious. His asked their Lordships to decide: 1. That this was an interlocutory application; 2. that there was nothing in it involved to enable respondents to go to Privy Council, 0. After Mr. Shearn had replied briefly, the President of the Court delivered judgment refusing the application. He said that he was not prepared on the spur of the moment to deal with the authorities that had been cited, some of which he had read before, while others were quite new to him. He was, however, perfectly satisfied that the application ought to be refused. He held that this was not a final judgment, and he was not satisfied that it was a question of such great public or general importance as to be allowed to go to the Privy Council. Although a large sum of money was involved that was not material. 0. Mr. Justice Watson said he fully agreed with the president. He had nothing further to add to what the president ad said. 0. Mr. Justice McCabe Reay concurred. 0. Mr. Braddell asked for costs with certificate for two counsel. This was granted. 0. Mr. Ivens asked for costs for the third defendant, but the court held that their appearance was not necessary and the application was disallowed. (728 words)

Malayan Collieries. [Letters] The Straits Times, 28 September 1923, Page 10 .  Malayan Collieries. To the Editor of the Straits Times. Sir, There appeared in the Press a few days ago an article from an unknown source stating that all Chinese labour had been deported from Pamoekan Bay Colliery, and that the company had been prohibited from importing further Chinese. Since this article appeared the Company’s shares have slumped heavily. Surely, Mr. Editor, it is up to the Company’s management to make some authoritative statement in connection with this matter and also as to whether any steps are being taken to remedy the trouble and protect shareholders’ interests. Yours etc., SHAREHOLDER. Singapore, September 27, 1923.

OCTOBER 0. Bankruptcy Court. [Articles] . The Straits Times, 6 October 1923, Page 10 0. Bankruptcy Court. Echo of Malayan Collieries Case. 0. There was an echo of the Malayan Collieries case in the Bankruptcy Court yesterday, before the Chief Justice (Sir Walter Shaw), when a motion on behalf of Ng Hong Guan that the Official Assignee be appointed interim receiver of his property was refused, and a receiving order and adjudication order was made against the debtor. 0. It was alleged that Mr. J. A. Russell was largely interested in the petitioning company, and that this was an attempt to push Mr. Ng Hong Guan into bankruptcy. Mr. V.D. Knowles appeared for the debtor, and Mr. P. H. Battishill for the petitioning creditor. Mr. M. J. Upcott represented a creditor who supported the petition, and Mr. Battenberg and Mr. .C. H. smith appeared for creditors who were stated to support the motion. 0. Mr. Battishall said he had not received proper notice of this motion, and he was not prepared to meet it that day. His instructions were to ask for an adjudication order on his petition, which had already been adjourned several times. 0. His Lordship: What objection have you to an order being made? 0. Mr. Battishall: The debtor really wants this petition to be postponed until a certain case has been tried. 0. Mr. Knowles: That is so my Lord. 0. Mr. Battishall stated that the directors of the petitioning company agreed to an extension of time if security was offered, and adjournments had followed for negotiations to be put through. The position that day was that after three adjournments the debtor had not succeeded in satisfying the directors as to security, and his instructions were to proceed with the petition. Counsel read the debtor’s petition, which was to the effect that pressure had been put upon him by various creditors, and that publicity in the local press has prejudiced his position and seriously injured his credit. He therefore asked the Court to appoint the Official Assignee to act as interim receiver of his estate. 0. His Lordship said that the motion could not take precedence of the petition. The petition must be taken first. 0. Mr. Knowles said the reason for the delay was that the petitioning creditor in this case, though purporting to be the Commercial Rubber Co., was, he believed, a company in which Mr. Russell – the defendant in the case referred to – was largely interested. The allegation on the part of the debtor was that this was an attempt to push him into bankruptcy, and that it was not bona fide. Further evidence that it was not bona fide was to be found in the fact that Mr. Russell was largely interested in the company for which Mr. Upcott was appearing. He (Mr. Knowles) was supported by the majority of creditors in applying that an interim receiver be appointed so that this action could not be stifled. 0. His Lordship: But that does not stop the petitioning creditor from proceeding with his petition. 0. Mr. Battisall read the petition, which alleged that the debtor owed $2,311 to the Commercial Rubber Co. on a judgment obtained in the Supreme Court. 0. Mr. Knowles read an affidavit by two Chinese creditors, who stated that Ng Hong Guan was indebted to them in the sum of $30,000 and $20,000 respectively. The affidavit said that these creditors had enquired into the assets of Ng Hong Guan, and were informed that his only asset was a claim for about $500,000. Under the present circumstances they were informed that it would be advantageous to them and to the general body of creditors if the application for the appointment of an interim receiver and for stay of proceedings was granted. Mr. Knowles also mentioned that the creditors represented by Mr. Battenburg and Mr. Smith were supporting his application. 0. His Lordship: These creditors cannot prevent another creditor from going on with bankruptcy proceedings. There is no other way of getting him out of the way than by paying him off. 0. Mr. Knowles urged that the appointment of an interim receiver was necessary in order to protect the only portion of the estate which appeared to be any use. He asked for a postponement for a week, and added that the directors of the petitioning company themselves were divided on the matter. Three out of five directors had signed a letter opposing the application. 0. His Lordship: I don’t see that I can give you any special facilities. In the ordinary way the creditor has made out a case for a receiving and adjudication order, and you have not shown that you are in a position to offer compensation satisfactory to your creditors. 0. His Lordship therefore granted the petition. 0. 0. (785 words)

PROMISSORY NOTE ACTION. [Articles] The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser (1884-1942), 10 October 1923, Page 7  0. PROMISSORY NOTE ACTION. SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS AGAINST H. R. LEGGE. A Promissory note made by H. R. Legge, of Malayan Collieries fame, and signed as surety by Mr. A. J. Cuckney. Chief Sanitary Inspector of the Singapore Municipality, came in for very close and careful scrutiny in the Supreme Court yesterday before the Chief Justice, Sir Walter Shaw. Mr. Cuckney was sued by a Chetty named Seena Aroomugam, who sought to recover $150 due under the note. The plaintiff was represented by Mr. V.D.Knowles and Mr. E. R. Koek appeared for the defendant. H. R. Legge was also sued, but he had entered no appearance and it was stated that he could not be found. Summary: (Note made in August last year, Legge employed in the office of Mr. Evans, the solicitor. “Legge was dismissed on August 17th (two days before he was alleged to have made the note) for misappropriating money. Hearing adjourned.)(1054 words)

MALAY MAIL, MONDAY OCTOBER 22, 1923 MALAYAN MATCHES Optimism at the Annual Meeting NO USE BEWAILING THE PAST The third annual meeting of Malayan Matches Ltd., was held on Saturday at the offices of the company, Hongkong and Shanghai Bank buildings, Kuala Lumpur. Mr R.C. Russell (alternate for Mr. J. A. Russell) presided and the others present were Mr. E.H.T. Gough, Mr. James Davidson (directors) Mr. A.McLennan and Mr. H.D. Brown (representing the agents and secretaries.) The notice convening the meeting having been read, the chairman addressed the meeting as follows: - Gentlemen, -The report and accounts having been in your hands for the prescribed period, I will, with your permission, take them as read. The total loss on the year’s operation is shown as $84,729.85, made up as follows: - $40,430.22, depreciation of plant, and $44, 296.52, being the difference between the year’s expenditure and the amount realised by sale of matches. I would point out, however, that owing to the company having exhausted its capital your directors have charged to revenue all items of wages and materials incurred in connection with erection and additions to plant, instead of making such charges on capital account. Debentures The balance of the authorised debentures was issued, the total amount now standing at $75,000, of which $67,000, or 90 per cent., was subscribed by your managing agents and secretaries. These debentures were redeemable on June 30, 1923, but I am glad to be able to report that the debenture holders have agreed to an extension of time for repayment, and the debentures now become payable on June 30, 1925. In addition to this, Messrs. J.A. Russell and Co. have since financed the company, by advancing amounts from time to time and by guaranteeing bank credits against which bills are drawn in London for paper, chemicals, etc. Sundry Creditors Sundry creditors stand at $61.560.88, made up of an overdraft at the company’s bankers of $367.50, debenture interest for the three months ending March 31 but not payable until June 30, $1,720.30, and trade creditors $59,473.08. Of this item $1, 828.80 is a liability in respect of orders unexecuted at the close of the company’s year but included in the year’s sales, $4,527.70 for bills payable for manufacturing materials from Europe and since paid, $27.675.23 balances due to contractors for the erection of the main building, boiler and boiler-house,$13,309.94 is due to the managing agents and secretaries, being sums advanced from time to time to finance the company’s operations, and the balance of $12,131.41 represents current trade accounts which have since been discharged. The Assets On the assets side the value of buildings has been increased by $2,288.18 by the erection of manager’s and clerks’ quarters. “Boilers, Machinery and Plant” is reduced by $2,274.83, this sum being the difference between the amount realised by the sale of surplus plant and the amount expended on additions and renewals. The item “furniture in office and bungalows” was increased by $901.29. Manufacturing stores and materials on hand stood at $6,177.16 against $17,471.14 at the close of 1921. Sundry debtors, for the most part on account of the previous months’ sales of matches, have now been paid. Future Prospects I very much regret that the hopes your directors had at the last meeting, that during the coming year the factory would be on a profit-making basis, have not materialised. This has been due to a variety of causes which your directors were powerless to avert, and with your permission, I will not dwell on them. All I can say is that owing to the efforts of Mr. Robbins, to whom your thanks are due, the running of the whole factory has been reorganised and the board is very confident that the arrangements that have been made will prove successful. Colonel Bunker’s investigations have enabled the company to produce a much better article, in fact, in competition with the other local match factory we secured the first prize at the recent Agri-Horticultural Show held in Kuala Lumpur. Our product is readily saleable, demand being in excess of our production, and the future seems brighter. Reconstruction Proposed It is no use bewailing past mistakes and expenditure, but I hope and think that with reconstruction the company will become a paying proposition. What form this reconstruction will take is at present engaging the attention of the board, and they hope to be able to place a scheme before you in the near future. Timber Supplies In conclusion, I would state that your directors have solved the question of timber supplies to which the chairman at the last meeting referred: we have concluded an arrangement with the Forest Department, satisfactory to both parties, whereby the company is assured of an ample supply of easily accessible timber for a term of years. I now beg formally to move that report and accounts before you be adopted and passed, but, before asking Major Gough to second this resolution, I will answer, to the best of my ability, any questions put by shareholders present. I might mention that, as in previous years, the directors are not taking any fees. There were no questions. Major Gough seconded the resolution and the report and accounts were adopted. Mr. J.A. Russell, the retiring director was re-elected. Messrs. Evatt and Co. were re-elected auditors. The report The following is the report of the directors:- Your directors beg to submit their annual report and statement of accounts for the third financial year of the company, ended March 31, 1923. The considerable loss on the year’s working, is mainly due to the fact that the whole of the running expenses for the period have been charged against only nine months’ revenue, during which period the output was substantially below what has since been achieved. Share Capital. -This remains unaltered. Debentures. -The whole of the authorised debentures of $75,000 have been issued. These were redeemable on June 30, 1923, but the company not being in a position to comply with this condition, the debenture holders have not pressed their claim; Mr. J.A. Russell, who is holder of 90 per cent of the issue, has given the company to understand that he will not press for repayment while there is hope of the company’s efforts ultimately proving successful. Production. -During the nine months of production 50,900 gross of boxes were produced and sold. The controlling influence upon capacity is the match dipping machinery; with the completion of the erection of the second machine of this nature your directors are still confident of being able to produce the previously estimated 700 to 800 gross per day. Sales. -A ready market has been created for the whole of the output of the factory to date, due to the improved quality of the matches and the energy and keen business acumen of our distributors, and we have every hope that this market will continue for the larger outputs of the current and future years. Machinery and Plant The work of erecting the duplicate plant was continued during the year, the existing plant being maintained in running order. Staff. -Several changes in management were necessary during the year under review and at the close of the period only Mr. Simons as factory engineer was in charge. Since the close of the year Mr. Simon’s period of service was brought to a conclusion and Mr. E. Mudispacher, who is proving himself capable of carrying out the combined duties of factory manager and engineer, is at present in charge. Directors. -The personnel of the board remains unaltered. Mr. J.A. Russell retires in conformity with the articles of association, and, being eligible, offers himself for re-election. Auditors. -Messrs. Evatt and Co., retire, but being eligible offer themselves for re-election. -On behalf of the Board R.C. Russell. Chairman

Malayan Matches, Ltd. [Articles] 0. The Straits Times 22 October 1923 page 9 and MALAYAN MATCHES. [Articles] The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser (1884-1942), 22 October 1923, Page 6  Malayan Matches Ltd. The third annual general meeting of Malayan Matches Ltd., was held in Kuala Lumpur on Saturday with Mr. R. C. Russell in the chair, reports the Malay Mail. The report and accounts, which showed a loss of $84,726.85 for the year, were adopted. The chairman in his speech, indicated that authorised debentures amounting to $75,000 had been issued, 90 per cent of these were held by J. A. Russell and Co., and they and other debenture holders who were repayable on June 30 1925. He also stated that the directors had solved the question of timber supplies by concluding an arrangement with the Forest Department. An ample supply of timber is thus assured for many years. There being no questions, the report and accounts were adopted. Mr. J. A. Russell retiring director, was re elected and Messrs. Neill and Bell were re-appointed auditors. 0. (160 words)

MALAYAN COLLIERIES. [Articles] The Straits Times, 23 October 1923, Page 9 MALAYAN COLLIERIES. (From Our Own Correspondent.) Ipoh, October 23. A large party of Perak miners, members of the Chamber of Mines, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, also the Selangor Miners' Association visited the Malayan Collieries at Batu Arang on Sunday, returning yesterday. They had a most memorable inspection. They viewed the open cast mines and then went down the main tunnel to the lower seam, 3,000 feet, wearing suits and miner’s caps with little lamps. After several hours in the mine a great luncheon party was held, Mr. A.A. Henggeler presiding. (92 words)

Bakau Tin, Limited. [Articles] (151 words) The Straits Times, 24 October 1923, Page 2 Bakau Tin, Limited. The directors of Bakau Tin, Limited, in their report for the year ended June 30, state: - The net profit for the year amounts to $84,726.85 for the year which with $6,543.10 brought forward from the previous year makes a total of $9,665.76 available. Your directors recommend that a dividend of 7and half percent. be paid in respect of the year ended June 30, of, 1923, and sold in $7,500, and that the balance of $2,165. 76 be carried forward to a new account. Directorate: Since the close of the year Mr. J. A. Russell proceeded on leave and Mr. R. C. Russell was appointed his alternate. Mr. A. K. E. Hampshire has returned to Malaya and has resumed his seat on board as Mr. F. J. Gore’s alternate. The retiring director is Mr. F. J. Gore who being eligible offers himself for re-election. Auditors: Messrs. Neil and Bell retire and offer themselves for re-election. (151 words)

Malayan Collieries—Labour In Borneo. [Letters] The Straits Times, 26 October 1923, Page 10 and copied in The Malay Mail, Saturday, October 27,1923. P.16 0. Malayan Collieries— Labour In Borneo. 0. To the Editor of the Straits Times. 0. Sir, Referring to the article headed “Labour Troubles in Borneo," which appeared in your issue of the 17th, ult., we should be obliged if you would grant us space for the following comments: - 0. (1) We were not ordered to deport 600 Chinese coolies at once, but were requested to remove as soon as possible about 200 of those who had taken part in the disturbances, and mutually satisfactory arrangements were concluded for complying with this request. 0. It had been decided some time before to replace the Chinese labour with Natives of Netherlands Indies, and the recent incident merely anticipated matters by a month or so. 0. (2) The Dutch local officials have never at any time given us to understand that the importation of fresh Chinese labour in the future would not be allowed. As a matter of fact, we can import all the Chinese labour we require, provided we comply with the regulations governing such importations 0. (3) It is quite correct that Pamoekan Bay is not an open port, and because of this ships proceeding there are subject to certain disabilities; but the steps are being taken to remove these disabilities, and in this connection local officials are rendering all the assistance they can. 0. (4) The Dutch officials have not created difficulties, nor sought to obstruct us in the running of our enterprise. On the contrary, they have all – from the Resident of South Eastern Borneo, down- extended every courtesy, and helped us whenever possible. - Yours, etc., J. A. RUSSELL &CO., Agents and Secretaries, Malayan Collieries, Ltd. 0. Kula Lumpur, October 25, 1923.. (279 words

SELANGOR COCONUTS, LTD. [Articles] 0. The Straits Times, 31 October 1923, Page 10 SELANGOR COCONUTS, LTD.. Possibility of Small Dividend Next Year. 0. (From Our Own Correspondent.) 0. Kuala Lumpur, October 2? The twelfth annual general meeting of Selangor Coconuts Ltd., was held at 1 Embankment, Kuala Lumpur, on October 20, Capt. H. L. Carter, the chairman, presiding. Notice convening the meeting having been read by a representative of the secretaries Boustead and Co., Ltd. (Summary: Chairman’s report and accounts.. profit for last year $35,064.45.. more than last years of $12,242,93… no dividend..money transferred for passage and leave pay… coolies pay.. cost of materials to erect new set of lines new copra store and office…copra reached average price of $10.55 per picul gross… cost of production down..crop obtained was 1,864,430 nuts, number used in nurseries .. exceeded estimate..may be able to pay dividend next year… estate in good condition, young clearings growing well some of more advanced trees in Field D showing signs of crop.. free of pests but bears have been doing considerable damage at the back of young clearings. Practically ruined about 30 acres…bears are elusive animals and very difficult to get rid of… mature area ploughed over and centrosema, a nitrogenous plant has been planted when it forms a complete cover it will be ploughed in. Both bungalows in fair state of repair but coolly lines being old.. not worth repairing and will be replaced gradually.. no questions asked…report and accounts passed.. Messrs A.K.E. Hampshire and J. A. Russell retiring directors re elected.. vote of thanks..) (890 words)

SOCIAL AND PERSONAL. [Articles] The Straits Times, 2 November 1923, Page 8 SOCIAL AND PERSONAL. Mr. J. A. Russell arrived back from home yesterday morning. (419 words)

THE MALAY MAIL, FRIDAY NOVEMBER 2ND, 1923. MALAYAN COLLIERIES LITIGATION Ng Hong Guan v. J.A. Russell OBJECTION TO REVIVAL OVERRULED Before the Chief Judicial Commissioner, Sir Lionel Woodward, yesterday afternoon, an interesting an interesting point of law was raised in connection with the Ng Hong Guan v. J.A. Russell action, one of the matters arising out of the protracted Malayan Collieries litigation. Mr. V.D. Knowles, instructed by Mr. D. Freeman, appeared for Mr. Ng Hong Guan, while the Hon. Mr. H.L. Cowdy, along with Mr. E.D. Shearn appeared for Mr. Russell. The Hon. Mr. Cowdy who opened the case, briefly outlined the facts. He stated that the plaintiff filed a claim on Oct.5 last year, but withdrew it on Feb. 15th this year through Mr. Sanders. The statement now before the court was filed on June 28 last-four and a half months after the withdrawal of the previous suit. Mr. Shearn filed a defence on Sept. 10. The two plaints, said counsel, covered the same ground. The allegations were the same in each case and the relief claimed was identical. Continuing, counsel remarked that the point which had to be decided was whether the plaintiff, under the circumstances which appeared on the record, was entitled to bring the present proceedings. The court, he said, had to rely on section 362 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Hon. Mr. Cowdy then read the sub-sections. He said that they relied on sub-section 3, which, he remarked, was a direct piece of legislation for the purpose of preventing the suit being brought, as the plaintiff had taken the liberty……. Sir Lionel Woodward, interrupting, enquired whether the plaintiff was bound by Mr. Sander’s actions. Counsel replied that there was no evidence or affidavit. His lordship: How can I deal with it unless the facts are all admitted? Hon. Mr. Cowdy; No, my lord. It is not admitted that Mr. Sanders received instructions. That is to say, the facts set out in the reply are not admitted. Mr Knowles replied that the instructions given by Mr. Ng Hong Guan to Mr. Sanders appeared in the record. The Hon. Mr. Cowdy said that there was a letter on the file from Messrs. Sanders and Sharma to Messrs. Pooley and Company. Sir Lionel Woodward: I suppose that that letter is very material. Hon. Mr. Cowdy: It is in a sense, my lord. Mr. Sanders was the plaintiff’s solicitor. He acted for him throughout this matter. Mr. Sanders, without any intimation to the other side, wrote the letter stating that he was authorised to discontinue the proceedings. His lordship told counsel that he could not refer to the letter unless he had evidence. The admissions, counsel said, were set out in the reply. His lordship intimated that counsel could not take the reply as evidence of the facts. Counsel: I think it does in paragraph 2. At this stage sections of the law on the point were cited. After lengthy discussion and reference to text books, Mr. Knowles stated that he was prepared to show that their procedure was correct. The further hearing was adjourned for today. Mr. V.D. Knowles, before calling evidence this morning, replied to the question raised by the Hon. Mr. Cowdy and argued on the law. His lordship in a rather lengthy judgment dismissed the defendant’s objection with costs.

Malayan Collieries. [Articles] The Straits Times, 2 November 1923, Page 10 Malayan Collieries. Ng Hong Guan v. Mr. J. A. Russell. (From Our Own Correspondent). Kuala Lumpur, November 1. In the Supreme Court this morning, before Sir Lionel Woodwood, C.J.C., the case came up for hearing in which Mr. Ng Hong Guan, of Singapore, sues Mr. J. A. Russell of Kuala Lumpur, for a sum of $500,000, as alleged partnership profits in the proportion of one- third and two- third shares over the resale of the Malayan Collieries’ Borneo property. Mr. H. L. Cowdy, with Mr. E. D. Shearn appear for the defendant and Mr. V. D. Knowles with Mr. David Freeman, appear for the plaintiff. The plaintiff and Mr. F. C. Peck were also in court. Mr. Cowdy, in opening the case, said that this matter had been set down for decision of a preliminary point. His Lordship was no doubt acquainted with the facts of the case, and he did not therefore, propose to go into them and read the plaint. An action was brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, in which the plaintiff declared that he was entitled to one-third share in the resale of the Malayan Collieries’ property in Borneo. Writ was issued on the defendant in Singapore, but service was set aside because it was out of the jurisdiction of the Singapore court. The plaintiff was referred to this court. He brought the action and the plaint was filed on October 5, 1922. That case was withdrawn on February 15, 1923. On June 28, 1923, a fresh plaint was filed. This is, continued counsel, about four and half months after the withdrawal. The defence to this was filed by Mr. Shearn. Para 3 of the defence read: - On or about 15th day of February, 1923, the plaintiff withdrew the said suit. Upon the withdrawal, thereof, the plaintiff did not obtain liberty from the court to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject matter hereof. The plaintiff is accordingly precluded from instituting this present suit and the defendant will ask that the same be dismissed with costs. Having raised that question in the defence, continued counsel, the defence was set forth on the merits. It was not disputed for the purposes of this case that the allegation in the two suits were identical. On October 10, the plaintiff filed a reply. Para 2 of that reply states: - As to paragraph 3 of the said written statement, the plaintiff says that on or about February 11, 1923, the plaintiff had an interview with his counsel, Mr. Sanders, and a letter authorising the withdrawal of the said action was drafted by Mr. Sanders and signed by the plaintiff. Paragraph 3 read: - on the evening of the said 11th day of February, 1923, the plaintiff telephoned to Mr. Sanders, who was then at the house of Mr. Shearn, the counsel for the above- named defendant, and informed Mr. Sanders that he did not wish the said case to be withdrawn and that he would give further instructions and requested him not to use the letter of authority. It was a matter of common knowledge, continued counsel, that the proceedings were duly advertised all over the country and the plaintiff must have been aware of the action taken by Mr. Sanders, namely the withdrawal of the suit. It did seem somewhat remarkable, prima facie, that he should have waited all that long period before taking any step. The preliminary point that had to be decided was a point of law and he could not call evidence to prove that instructions were given for the action to be withdrawn, although if his Lordship was not with him on the point of law he could do so. The point to decide was whether the plaintiff, under the circumstances, entitled to bring these proceedings. The defendant’s case relied on section 362 of the Civil Procedure Code. Having read the section, counsel submitted that that was a correct piece of legislation, enacted expressively for the purpose of stopping suits such as this being brought. Counsel then referred to a letter form Messrs. Sanders and Sharma to Messrs. Pooley and Co., dated February 11, 1923, which read: - Dear Sirs: - With reference to our interview to-day, we are authorised to discontinue proceedings in accordance with the advice we tendered our client about a fortnight ago that his evidence was insufficiently corroborated. Counsel also referred to the order of the court which read: - The suit coming on for final disposal on the 15th day of February, 1923, before the Hon. Mr. Justice Farrar Manby, Judicial Commissioner, in the presence of Mr. A. B. Sanders, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, and Mr. E.D. Shearn appearing on behalf of the defendant, and the said suit having been withdrawn by the plaintiff it is ordered that the costs of the suit be taxed by the proper officer of the court and paid by the plaintiff to the defendant after deducting the cost of the defendant’s application ordered to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff on the 7th day of November, 1922, which costs shall also be taxed and paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. Given under my hand and the seal of this court this 15th day of February, 1923. Signed: G. Rigby (Registrar) It is alleged, said counsel, that Mr. Sanders without any intimation to the plaintiff wrote that letter. The facts were simply that Mr. Sanders was duly authorised as a lawyer to withdraw and he did withdraw. Whether he wrote to Pooley and Co., or not did not matter. Replying to the court, counsel said that in the ordinary way counsel had authority to withdraw or compromise an action. He produced the letter already referred to, to show that Mr. Sanders had acted on the instructions of his client. It was also admitted by the plaintiff in paragraph 2 of the reply, to which counsel had already referred. Continuing, counsel said that this was ample proof that plaintiff had authorized the suit to be withdrawn. His Lordship said that the next paragraph stated that he telephoned later asking Mr. Sanders not to withdraw. Mr. Cowdy said that the plaintiff would have to prove that. His Lordship: But I must assume that all the allegations in the plaint is true. When he says he telephoned, I must assume that he did. Mr. Cowdy then went on to attack the procedure adopted by the plaintiff in bringing this action. The gist of the plaintiff’s reply, continued Mr. Cowdy, amounted to this: - That Mr. Sanders had no authority for withdrawing the original suit. If he did not have the authority he could not have withdrawn or, at any rate, the effect of it was lost. The procedure in that case was for the plaintiff to see the order of withdrawal struck out or squashed. He was afraid he thought his learned friend was led astray by the English procedure, which was different to their procedure. What he wanted to show was that there was no procedure in this country or in India apart from the direct authority given by sub–section 2 of sec. 362, whereby a litigant can start a fresh action. His Lordship asked whether, if he decided this point in the plaintiff’s favour the defendant proposed to call evidence. Mr. Cowdy replied in the affirmative. The case is proceeding. (1120 words)

THE MALAY MAIL, SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 3RD, 1923. Mr Russell’s Application Dismissed SUIT TO BE HEARD “This is a somewhat difficult question” remarked Sir Lionel Woodward, Chief Judicial Commissioner, in deciding the point of law raised by the Hon. Mr. H.L. Cowdy and Mr. E.D. Shearn, on behalf of Mr. J.A. Russell, in connection with the case brought by Mr. Ng Hong Guan. The point at issue was whether the procedure followed by Mr. Hong Guan’s counsel, Mr. V.D. Knowles, in filing a claim, was correct. On Oct. 5 last year Mr. Hong Guan filed a claim through Mr. Saunders. On Feb. 18, Mr. Sanders withdrew this claim. Four and a half months later-in June this year-Mt. Hong Guan filed another claim, declared to be identical in every respect with the previous one. The defendant’s counsel applied to the court for the dismissal of the present claim. Defending Counsel’s Arguments Mr. V.D. Knowles, before calling evidence yesterday morning, replied to the Hon. Mr. Cowdy, and argued on the law. He said that section 362 of the Penal Code, sub-section 1, enabled the plaintiff to withdraw his suit, and nothing was said in that portion about the permission of, or application to, the court being required. Counsel went on to say that if the plaintiff had served notice on the defendants stating that he proposed to withdraw his suit, the proper course for the defendants would be to apply to the court for the dismissal of the suit. Sub-section 2 was totally different. The party had to go to court and satisfy on two points. He had to prevent a dismissal which would automatically follow in the event of section 1 being followed. He had to be protected from the consequences of that dismissal. Secondly, if there were sufficient grounds to have a fresh suit when the plaintiff stated that he was going to withdraw his suit and the defendants were going to claim dismissal, such a dismissal could not be made except to file a fresh suit. Mr. Knowles, continuing, said that he had given notice of withdrawal under sub-section 1, but no application had been made for dismissal. If an application had been made for dismissal, he would have found himself in a position asking for the recission of that order. In conclusion, counsel added that there had been no dismissal or decision to stop a fresh action being brought. Mr. Shearn’s Reply Mr. Shearn replied. He said that according to section 326 of the Civil Procedure Code, when a plaintiff had withdrawn his suit he was precluded from bringing a fresh suit. The word “dismissal” did not appear in section 362. His lordship: No order has been made ordering a withdrawal? Mr. Shearn: The fact is shown in the file. There is a note made that the suit has been withdrawn. His lordship: Suppose the suit has been put down for hearing in the monthly list. During the month the plaintiff’s solicitor writes to the defendant’s solicitor that he withdraws the suit. What is the position of the court then? If nobody is there, an order of dismissal is issued under the Civil Procedure Code. Some order would be asked for if the parties appear (ed). Counsel: Cases are frequently struck out, without any order being made on the fixing day. His lordship: If an order has been made, what is the effect of the order? Counsel: The operation of an order is merely payment of costs. Therefore it has to be withdrawn or not. It must be one of the two things. If it has not been withdrawn then it is pending. His lordship: That is what is not clear. On the face of that order it cannot be said to be pending. Counsel: The point I submit to your lordship is this. Having regard to this order, has the suit been withdrawn or not? If it has been withdrawn, then the plaintiff is precluded by section 362, sub-section 3. If the suit has not been withdrawn, surely it would seem only reasonable to assume that it is an effective suit and one which is pending before the court, and if it is pending then you cannot bring another suit for the same matter. His lordship: The words, “the suit having been withdrawn by the plaintiff” is not an order at all. In the first place no permission is necessary to withdraw unless under sub-section 1. Counsel: It is a permitting section, permitting the plaintiff to withdraw. Nothing is said under that order that he has the permission of the court. His lordship: There is no definite procedure laid down as to how he is to withdraw. Mr. Shearn: If the suit has been withdrawn, the plaintiff is precluded from filing a fresh suit. If my learned friend says that the suit has not been withdrawn then he is bringing a second suit. My submission is: is it withdrawn or not? I, therefore, submit that this court must decide that the former suit has been withdrawn. I further submit that the court must say that no leave was given to file a fresh suit. Judgment His lordship in giving judgment said: This is a somewhat difficult question. I should like to take a little time to consider it. I should like to put into better language than I would be able to say on the spur of the moment, and to set out my reasons more fully than I am able to state now. The only question now submitted to me is the question of procedure and, therefore, to come to a conclusion I have to take as true the allegation made in the written statement before me, the reply to the defence. In paragraph 2, the plaintiff no doubt admits that he had sent to his solicitor a letter authorising the withdrawal of the first action, and again, in paragraph 3, that he telephoned to Mr. Sanders and stated that he did not wish the case to be withdrawn, and that he would give further instructions not to use the letter of authority. By telephone he withdrew the letter of authority and I must take it, in dealing with this question, that the allegation is true; that he had telephoned to this effect to Mr. Sanders. Nevertheless, it appears that the case came before the court. This order was made on Feb 15, and the question seems to me, what is the effect of that order, treated in the light of the material provisions of the Civil Procedure Code? The Effect of the Order Prima facie, I think that, on principles, if there is any doubt as to what the procedure is under the Code, the plaintiff should have the benefit of the doubt. His action should not be ousted at this stage on a technical point. With regard to section 362 (1) as I intimated just now, it does not seem to me to lay down any definite procedure for the plaintiff withdrawing his suit, although it allows the plaintiff to withdraw the action. No doubt some machinery is necessary by which that sub-section can be carried into effect. I agree with Mr. Knowles’s submission that the ordinary way of carrying that sub-section into effect would have been for the plaintiff’s representative to go to court and thereupon the defendant’s representative would apply for an order of dismissal, or else the court would make an order allowing the plaintiff to withdraw. This order, as it has been drafted is not, in my opinion, an order allowing the plaintiff to withdraw, or an order dismissing the action. It is simply stating that “the suit having been withdrawn by this plaintiff it is ordered that the cost of this suit be operated.” The operative part of the order only refers to the costs, and although the words “the suit having been withdrawn by the plaintiff,” are explanatory of the order made, I cannot consider that they are part of the order and, therefore, I think no order was made. The order is not an order dismissing the suit or giving the plaintiff leave to withdraw. Is it Still Pending? Well, then, it is said with regard to that that if the suit has not been dismissed or withdrawn then it must be taken to be still a pending suit under section 5, and that, therefore, no fresh suit can be executed while this is pending. That may be so, but I think it doubtful whether, in the face of that order, it can be said to be a pending suit, because on the face of the order, as far as the plaintiff is concerned, the suit would, presumably, not come before the court again for any further order, and, therefore, I think that it is very doubtful, in view of the terms of the order, whether it can be said to be a pending suit within the meaning of section 5. Certainly it is not a matter that can be brought within section 6. Process of Elimination The case has never been heard on its merits; no decision of the court on the issues has been made, and, therefore, the suit neither having been dismissed nor ordered to be withdrawn under section 362(1), and being very doubtful whether it is a pending suit within the meaning of section 5, and as it cannot come under section 6, I am inclined to think-I must admit it is a matter of doubt-that Mr. Knowles was justified, under the very peculiar circumstances of this case, in filing an action. In my opinion, sub-section 2 of section 362 does not apply here, because that seems to me, where the plaintiff makes an application to the court, and the plaintiff having realised that his case is defective in some formal point, or that there are other grounds on which he can bring a new suit which would be very likely to succeed, he can ask the court for permission to withdraw the first suit and grant him leave to file a fresh suit. I do not think that that sub-section applies. No such application was made in this case, and the permission referred to in sub-section 3 is only the permission referred to in sub-section 2, and therefore sub-section 2 does not apply, nor does sub-section 3 apply. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, I must decide against the defendant’s application that I should dismiss the present suit. Mr. Knowles, in seeking an order for costs, asked that two counsels’ fees be included, but his lordship disallowed the latter.

MALAYAN COLLIERIES. [Articles] The Straits Times, 3 November 1923, Page 9 MALAYAN COLLIERIES. 0. Mr. Ng Hong: Guan versus Mr. J. A. Russell. (From Our Own Correspondent). Kuala Lumpur, November 2 The Hong Guan v. Russell case was continued before Sir. L. M. Woodward, C.J.C., this morning, in the Supreme Court. Mr. V. D. Knowles and Mr. Shearn addressed the court, and his Lordship, in giving his judgment, said that this was a difficult question and he wished he could take more time to think it over and put into better language what he wanted to say. He had now to decide on the question of procedure. To do so he had to take all the allegations in the written statement as correct. In para 2 of the plaintiff’s reply it was stated that he (plaintiff) did give a letter of authority to Mr. Sanders to withdraw and in para 3 he stated that he later telephoned and said he did not wish for the action to be withdrawn. Therefore, by telephoning he withdrew the letter of authority. He must take that as true. Continuing, his Lordship said that as the plaint disclosed a good cause of action the plaintiff’s action should not be ousted at this stage over a technical point. Dealing with the order of the court, his Lordship said that it was not an order allowing the plaintiff to withdraw or dismissing the action. It simply stated that “ the suit having been withdrawn by the plaintiff it is ordered that the costs of the suit be paid by the plaintiff”. Therefore no order was made at all, and the order was also not an order dismissing the suit or giving plaintiff leave to withdraw. It was doubtful whether, in the face of that order, the suit could be said to be pending within the meaning of section 5. The case had also not been heard on its merits and no decision on the issues relating to the plaint had been arrived at. Under the peculiar circumstances of the case, his Lordship was inclined to think that Mr. Knowles was justified in his submission that the plaintiff was entitled to another action. “ taking all the circumstances into consideration, said his Lordship, in conclusion I must dismiss this application” 0. Mr. Knowles asked for costs for two counsel. 0. His Lordship allowed costs for one counsel.

F.M.S. Revenue. [Articles] The Straits Times, 3 November 1923, Page 9  F.M.S. Revenue. (From a Correspondent.) The Federated Malay States can still boast that they turn out printed estimates for each of the four states, and go one better by producing a federal estimate besides. Extract “The duty on matches imported amounted to as much as over a quarter of a million, so, perhaps the Government is not over keen in fostering local industry. The recent report of Malayan Matches Ltd. “ disclosed a huge loss, but it is sincerely hoped that the reconstruction scheme will put the company on a paying basis after so many years of apparently uphill work”

HONG GUAN vs. RUSSELL. [Articles] . The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser (1884-1942), 3 November 1923, Page 6 HONG GUAN vs. RUSSELL. 0. (From Our Own Correspondent). Kuala Lumpur, Nov. 2. 0. A point of law is being argued in the Kuala Lumpur Supreme Court by Mr. V. D. Knowles and Mr. D. Freeman for Mr. Ng Hong Guan, and Mr. H. L. Cowdy and Mr. E. Shearn for Mr. J. A. Russell. 0. Mr. Cowdy outlined the facts, saying that the plaintiff filed a claim in Oct. 5th of last year, and withdrew it on Feb 15th of this year. The statement now before the Court was filed on June 28th, and the defence was filed on Sept 10th. Counsel declared that the two plaints covered the same ground, the allegations were the same, and the relief claimed was identical. The point for decision was whether the plaintiff was entitled to bring the present proceedings. The legal argument proceeded. The hearing has been adjourned. 0. Kuala Lumpur, Later. 0. In the Collieries Case, Mr. V. D. Knowles, replied on the legal points, and undertook to call evidence if he failed in this. His Lordship did not require this, and delivered a lengthy judgment dismissing the defendant’s objection with costs. 0. (190 words)

LETTER FROM DISTRICT OFFICER, KLANG, TO THE SECRETARY TO RESIDENT, SELANGOR. 13TH NOVEMBER, 1923 1 in D.O.K. 407/1923 District office, Klang 13th: November, 1923 Sir, I have the honour to report the receipt of enquiries from Mr Lee Kim Soo of the “Elkayes Match Factory Singapore” with reference to the possibility of establishing a Match Factory in Klang. 2. I shall be glad if I may be informed (a) whether any monopoly of any kind has been granted to Malayan Matches Limited. (b) for what period is the present duty on matches imposed, and what are the prospects of its continuance thereafter. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servant, ? District Officer, KLANG From National Archives of Malaysia. Sel 4569/23 Transcribed by P.C

FEDERAL COUNCIL. [Articles] The Straits Times, 16 November 1923, Page 9 0. FEDERAL COUNCIL. High Commissioner's Annual Address. Financial Reorganisation. 0. Following is the full text of the address of H. E. the High Commissioner (Sir Laurence Guillemard, K.C.B., K.C.M.G.), at the meeting of the Federal Council on November 14:- Your Highnesses and hon. members at the Federal Council. (Summary: Very long report in sections which include: Public health, Education, Trade and Customs, Land and Agriculture, Co- Operation, Police and Crime, Public Works, Town Planning, Defence, Indian Labour, Railways; In February this year joint committee appointed to consider future administration of Prai committee includes J. A. Russell Esq. the committee have devoted much time and labour to this difficult problem but, pending further investigations into the rate of silting in the river, have not been able to report… Rubber, Decentralisation, General, and Finance. Speeches by Unofficial members on The supply Bill, Chief Secretary’s reply.) 0. (6895 words)

LOCAL WIRES. [Articles] The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser (1884-1942), 16 November 1923, Page 7  0. LOCAL WIRES. THE FEDERAL COUNCIL. (From Our Own Correspondent.) Kuala Lumpur, Nov. 15. The Federal Council sat till 4.30 p.m., and adjourned till Saturday. Extract: Mr. Choo Kia Peng “ asked for the withdrawal of the matches tax as soon as the obligations to Malayan Matches Co. had been discharged.”

LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY TO RESIDENT, SELANGOR TO THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KLANG. 29TH NOVEMBER, 1923 (2) IN 4569/23 Kuala Lumpur, 29th November, 1923. Sir, In reply to your letter 407/23 dated 13th November, 1923, I am directed to inform you that (i) No monopoly has been granted to Malayan Matches limited, (ii) An import duty will be in force until the 25th November, 1924: the continuance of the duty after that date will be a matter for the decision of the Federal Council. 2. If the “Elkayes Match Factory” desires to set up a factory in Klang it will have to submit full details as to the site, plan and specification for the consideration of the Sanitary Board, the Licensing Officer and the Resident. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servant, ? Secretary to Resident, Selangor From National Archives of Malaysia. Sel 4569/23 Transcribed by P.C

Page 7 Advertisements Column 5 [Advertisements] The Straits Times, 4 December 1923, Page 7and Page 13 Advertisements Column 1 [Advertisements] The Straits Times, 7 December 1923, Page 13  and Page 13 Advertisements Column 1 [Advertisements] The Straits Times, 7 December 1923, Page 13 . MALAYAN COLLERIES, LTD 0. NOTICE OF DECLARATION OF DIVIDEND No. 12 AND CLOSURE OF SHARE REGISTERS etc. 0. 0. (428 words)

THE MALAY MAIL, DECEMBER 6TH , 1923. MALAYAN COLLIERIES CASE A compromise At the beginning of last month Mr. V.D. Knowles, on behalf of Mr. Hong Guan, successfully argued a point of law before Sir Lionel Woodward, the Chief Judicial Commissioner. In that case Mr. J.A. Russell, through his solicitors, the Hon. Mr. H.L. Cowdy and Mr. E.D. Shearn, contended that the procedure adopted by Mr. V.D. Knowles, in filing a claim was incorrect. It was then stated that on Oct. 5, last year, Mr. Hong Guan filed a claim through Mr. Sanders. On Feb 18 of this year Mr. Sanders withdrew this claim. Four and-a-half months later-in June this year-Mr. Hong Guan filed another claim, declared to be identical in every respect with the previous one. The defendants’ counsel applied to the court for the dismissal of that claim, but his lordship decided that Mr. Knowles’s procedure was in order. Mr. Russell appealed against this decision. When the appeal was taken up to-day for hearing, the Hon. Mr. G.S. Carver and Mr. Joaquim appeared on behalf of the appellants, while Mr. V.D. Knowles and Mr. Freeman appeared for the respondents. The Hon. Mr. Carver dealt briefly with the question of procedure, with which, he said, counsel for the respondents agreed. Mr. Knowles said that they had come to a compromise, by which the appeal was allowed on consent being given to respondents to apply in the other action to restore the same and set aside the withdrawal. Their lordship made an order accordingly, but there was no order with respect to costs

Untitled [Articles] (73 words) The Straits Times 14 December 1923 page 8 and Untitled [Articles] The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser (1884-1942), 20 December 1923, Page 6 Dr. R. Allan, Geologist to the Sarawak Oilfields, Ltd., who has been for some weeks at Selantik after the return of Mr. H. H. Robbins, representative of Messrs. J. A. Russell and Co., of Kuala Lumpur, returned to Kurching on his way back to Miri on November 27. The Sarawak Gazette understands he did not find any traces of oil there, though he appeared keenly interested in the geological formations of the area.

Untitled [Articles] The Straits Times, 18 December 1923, Page 8 In connection with the action brought by Mr. F. C. Peck, on behalf of himself and others, against Mr. J. A. Russell, Messrs. J. A. Russell and Co., and the Malayan Collieries, Ltd., says Monday's Malay Mail, Mr. Joaquim for the first and second defendants, made an application, before Sir Lionel Woodward, for a Commission to Java to examine Dr. William Birnie, Mr. Tan Way Au and Mr. Jan van Ryswyk and some others. His Lordship granted the application. (79 words)

FROM PROCEEDINGS OF THE FEDERAL COUNCIL OF THE FEDERATED MALAY STATES. VOL 1-1923 The next question to which I would refer is the question of the taxation of matches. You will remember that when we put this taxation on it was during the war period, partly to get more money during the war and partly owing to the arrangement made with Malayan Matches. I do not know whether I am right or not, but I believe the end of our obligations to Malayan Matches must be drawing near. We are only getting from this taxation less than half a million dollars a year, and I think most people would agree that that this small tax generally comes from the poor people. This form of taxation is not equitable. I hope as soon as we can afford, and as soon as our obligations to Malayan Matches are over, that the Government will take it off.