188
THE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, TH APRIL, 1879.
Breach of “ The Eæcise Ordinance (Opium) 1858-1879."
5. Fong A-yat, an accountant of the "Faŭ-On" pawnshop at Wellington Street, was convicted
on the 1st instant of having in his possession a quantity of prepared opium without a permit from the Opium Farmer. He was fined $200 or three months' imprisonment with hard labour
and the whole of the opium and utensils seized, together with a moiety of the fine, if paid, were declared by the Magistrate as forfeited to the Opium Farmer.
6. Laŭ A-him, a mat-packer, was on the 4th
instant convicted of having in his possession a tin of prepared opium without a permit from the
Opium Farmer, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $50, and in default of payment to be impri- soned for four weeks with hard labour.
The
opium found was ordered to be confiscated and delivered to the Opium Farmer.
Attempting to bribe a Police Constable.
7. Laŭ A-him, the same person as above, was further convicted of offering a bribe to a Consta-
ble, and fined $10, in default of payment to be imprisoned for seven days with hard labour, the same taking effect at expiration of the sentence in the above case.
Breach of “ The Stamp Ordinance.”
8. Tang Wan-hing, master of the "Hang-maǔ I-ki” chandlery, was convicted on the 1st instanţ of giving a receipt for a sum of money exceeding $10 without affixing a receipt stamp to it, and fined $10 or twenty-one days' imprisonment.
Returning from Banishment.
9. Fung A-pò, an old offender, who had been several times in Gaol and finally banished, was charged with returning to the Colony before the expiry of the term of his banishment. The
Magistrate sentenced him to twelve months' im-
prisonment with hard labour, on the 3rd instant.
Breach of "The Dangerous Goods Ordinance, 1873."
10. Sham A-wai, proprietor of the “T'ai-shing” shop was summoned at the instance of the In- spector of Markets for keeping kerosine oil in his shop in contravention of section XI of the above Ordinance. He admitted the offence, but pleaded ignorance of the law. The Magistrate inflicted
a fine of $50 in this instance, and told the De- fendant that he was liable under the Ordinance to a penalty of $100 a day for each day during which the oil was so kept.
例烟-
年十百千及八五八一違 案條洋承九七八一年十百千犯
例案 一半撥歸公司 烟條 烟器具罰項照例 -
洋 個月幷作苦工洋 年承 不完欸監禁三
例洋
十九 案判罰銀二百員
烟烟請洋貯
爲 器數票烟
故
且搜
有得明承得事 到煮洋遂-
私人
司承執幷監十案一而經初也
-
之
司以資填補
煙
煙膏工
判罐私領四
貯取
銀拿煙牌為本
違犯 方亞日乃威靈頓
劉謙打包者
補公歸所拜則五到膏照未月者
案差賄行欲
幷操苦工
案 員不完罰歎 另監禁七天
判罰銀十大
監禁二十
一天
I
天
不完罰欸
十欵員
拿役差際也貯劉
罰他佯釋私篇煙
案
大官
役佯允所請
差釋放而差
例捐印違
賄執之
劉謙者卽私
買之人私
銀到捐單一於貨茂鄧 案例有 本店怡
票違
一日爲收
初也雜恒
案囘逃軍-
為
十判被月本私期 禁 二作拿初 自限-
下犯也 個 到三於逃 軍事 月工案日本囘滿而後被屢
案貨險貯例違篇
律應罰銀一百員 火水在舖每天照
另官諭被告云貯
律不
告儆罰
但時
案之時岑韋直認
銀未直
第千屯控
第十一歎例而到
千八百七十三年
貯之
火到
爲
違舖
馮保者積
岑韋乃泰盛之東
主
也被街市總差
貯尤五諳認到年一內差東