12
The Hongkong Government Gazeite.
[Mr Hoey, who had been a second time summoned, not having appeared, and the Editors of the China Mail and Hongkong Register having stated that they had no evidence to give,]
Committee adjourned till Monday, 17th May inst.,at10.30A.M.
H. T. DAVIES, Chairman.
Monday, 17th May instant, at 10.30.
Present,-Both Members. FRANCIS INNES HAZELAND, Esq., Solicitor,-Called in and examined.
By the Chairman.-I was present in the Court of Petty Sessions, when Mr Hoey was examined before you by Mr Day. He stated on oath on cross-examination by Mr Kings | mill, that he knew Dr Bridges had a direct interest in the Opium Monopoly.
Chairman,-When I tell you that I am convinced that Mr Hoey swore nothing to that effect, but simply to the effect that he knew that Dr Bridges took a great interest in the Opium Monopoly or Ordinance, do you adhere to your statement ?
Witness, I do; because I took it down at the time; because I heard it, not because Mr Day told me. Mr Day said, "you've put down that, havn't you?" Mr Day I believe did not tell me what Mr Hoey had said.
In answer to Mr Dent,-No comment was made on this statement of Hoey's by any ouc.
[JUNE 19, 187
:
AMBROSE PARSONS, Esq.,-Called in and examine By the Chairman.—On the 1st or 2d March, I think,- I have taken considerable pains to ascertain the date.—at office Chun-tai-kwong came to me alone; he said "I be I know now who is to have the Opium Monopoly, a want to engage your services." We talked on the s for a little time, on the assumption that he was ecrtain! have it, though he did not state so. I told him I could: tell what my services would cost him, because I did | know what business was likely to arise out of it. I
"you had better give me a general retainer, and then may be able to make some arrangement for doing the br-t for a round sum annually." He then said, "I hope it turn out well, for a large sum is to be paid for it." named some sum, I do not know what; my impression that his tender had been accepted from the general te of his conversation, and not because he directly told so. I certainly considered that he had retained me to a for him as solicitor in the Opium business. He was an client of mine, and I had a great respect for him. I certain should have refused a retainer in the business for any b else. Indeed, a day or two alter, I told Mr Day that I had be retained. I think Chun-tai-kwong called on me once or twi after this, but I had no further conversation with him on t subject, until I found that proceedings had been taken his behalf in the Opium business, for which I was not engag I made inquiries from which I found that in these proceedings solicitor was acting for him. When therefore I heard that so proceedings relating to the subject were coming on before Supreme Court, I had made up my mind to appear in Con and to address the Chief Justice on the subject of the bre... of etiquette and privilege that had been committed by Counsel being engaged without being instructed by an A torney. Mr Stace, however, told me before the hearing, th he was acting as Solicitor for Chun-tai-kwong. I theref took no further steps in the business.
By Mr Dent. I have asked Chun-tai-kwong why
JOHN DAY, Esq.,-Called in and examined. By the Chairman.-I was present when Mr Hoey was examined before you in the Court of Petty Sessions. I recollect that he stated on cross-examination by Mr Kings- mill that he had not told Dr Bridges (when he was at the Government Offices to sign the bond connected with the Opium Monopoly) that he (Hoey) had no interest in it. Mr Kingsmill pressed him strongly on this point. This appeared to irritate Mr Hocy exceedingly. Mr Kings- mill then asked Hocy why he did not tell Dr Bridges he (Hoey) had an interest in it. Hoey made no direct reply, but as it appeared to me, he in great anger blurted out, "be-deserted me in the matter; he did not give me any answ cause I knew he had an interest in it himself." Mr Kingsmill I do not know that Dr Bridges acted in the case of Chun-t asked no further questions on this point; and when it came kwong in a different manner and one more strongly infringi to my turn as Counsel for Hoey to re-examine him, I con- professional etiquette than he usually does. Dr Bridges d sidered that statement so irrelevant to the matter under inquiry, not conceal the fact, that he acts in breach of what is conside that I did not re-examine upon it. Although I have no doubted professional etiquette, by seeing clients without the interve whatever that Hoey uttered these words, yet he appeared to me to be very bitter against Dr Bridges at the time, as if he supposed that it was at Dr Bridges's instigation that the proceed ings in the Court were taken against him; so that his statement seemed to me suggested by this feeling, and the words them- selves were so vague and ambiguous, that they might have been interpreted in a variety of ways, and that it was impossible for me or any one else to say whether the word "interest," referred to Dr Bridges's interest as Counsel, interest as Mono- polist, or interest as legislator. I was the more convinced that in making use of those words he was actuated by a hostile feeling, because this was no answer to the question put to him. Chairman.--When I tell you that I, the presiding magistrate, on the occasion referred to, am convinced that Mr Hoey simply stated to the effect that Dr Bridges took a great interest in the Opium Ordinance, do you adhere to your statement?
Mr Day,-I am convinced that I am correct in my state- ment. I told Mr Hazeland to take Mr Hoey's words down. I think I did not repeat the words, but simply said "take this down." I should wish to state to the Committee the
|
|
tion of an Attorney. Chun-tai-kwong has since told me th he should like to get quit of the Monopoly, if he could back wi it had cost him. He was dissatisfied with the decision of th- Supreme Court in his case, and said that he thought the gover ment had not used him well-that they had not proper supported him.
MR DOUGLAS LAPRAIK.-Called in and examined
By the Chairman.I am an inhabitant of long-standing in th place. I am acquainted with trade and business in varie branches. [Mr Glatz's letter (1) handed to witness]. Iden consider this a tender at all. I should not only consider mys justified in rejecting, but bound to reject, such a proposal or oft it is not a tender at all. I have been accustomed to tenders of all kinds, and in great numbers, and I know th practice with regard to tenders here. I have nothing to sta in reference to the subject of your inquiry, except perhat that Chun-tai-kwong told me a few evenings ago, that after a he expected to clear $20,000 by the business.
CHARLES GLATZ.-Called in and examined. By the Chairman.-[His letter (I) handed to him sent this in to government. I have in no respect to compla of the conduct of the Acting Colonial Secretary in referenc to the grant of the Opium Monopoly.
circumstances under which I told the Attorney General that Hoey had made this statement. The Attorney General (who had to my knowledge been consulted by Hoey on the case on which I appeared before you,) shewed me the draft of a letter he THE REGISTRAR GENERAL.-Called in and examine had written to the Government, in which he stated from memory By the Chairman.-The first occasion on which I spoke t words which he said he had before taken down from Hoey's any of Chun-tai-kwong's partners about the Op um grant, Wa mouth, and which he (the Attorney General,) had been informied || I should think, about the 18th March. I cannot speak po Hoey had since denied. I said I could well believe that Hoeytively. Ido not know the name of the man to whom I spoke, b had made such a statement, and that he had done so under I had seen him often before. He is a Rice-merchant here. the influence of strong feeling against Dr Bridges, for having, said to me on that serasion, that his firm had tendered, and as he supposed, instigated the proceedings in the Court of Petty | wanted to know Sessions against him; and I mentioned as a reason for my so thinking, the fact that he had sworn before the Court of Petty | Sessions what I have stated to the Committee, and that lie was evidently on that occasion actuated by the same feelings as I attributed to him when making the statement to the Attorney General.
RAFAEL ROZARIQ,—Called on and examined. By the Chairman. I am Interpreter at the Magistracy. By your direction I called at Mr Hoey's at 10.30 to-day. I saw his brother-his barkeeper. He told me that Mr Hoey had left this morning in the Williamette steamer "for Macao or Canton, or wherever the steamer went." He said he did not know when Mr Hoey could be back.
or his tender had been accepted. T
was at my olive. came to me I suppose, as all Chine do, because I mm Protector of Chinese. I told him I kn nothing about it. A day or two after the last day for tende ing Dr Bridges sent for me here, and asked me to m inquiry as to the Chuen-lee Company, whose tender he told a was the highest. I ascertained who they were through il man I have just referred to. I did not know that Chun-t kwong was a member of the firm, until the Rice-merch told me so. 1 do not know whether Dr Bridges knew Chie tai-kwong before; my impression is that he did not, because l asked me about him. I am convinced that Dr Bridges did p know that Chun-tai-kwong belonged to the Chuen-lee fir I had known A-chew their surety; and as soon as his nam