70
Government protected itself by Ordinance," is untrue. Surely Mr. A. G. M. Fletcher cannot forget the interview, that both Mr. Williamson and myself attended up at his office in the Colonial Secretariat Building. The meeting, at which the inadvisability of both parties carrying on with the legal proceedings, already instituted by us, was brought up; where it was pointed out to us, the futility of incurring huge mutual legal obligations: and where it was suggested, that in view of the early departure for Home of Mr. A. G. M. Fletcher, we should leave all proceedings in abeyance until his return, and that in the interim an adjustment might possibly take place.
There is no object for me to make any untrue statements, as no possible good would ever result therefrom, nor do I desire to associate myself with any such means to attain my ends. And, I will again state that the result of this interview was the means of the legal proceedings being held up, and such facts are in written existence in Hongkong to-day.
At that interview there was no whisper, intention, or warning placed before Mr. Williamson or myself that an Ordinance and the Eventual Indemnity Act of 1922, would be set into operation during Mr. Fletcher's absence at Home, but such really was the case, and it came into operation and full force shortly after his return to the Colony.
The coincidence and the connection were remarkable, and still even in face of this, I still believe and contend that Mr. Fletcher was at that meeting, acting in entire good faith towards us, but that all the same the subsequent inauguration of the Indemnity Act of 1922, was started almost immediately afterwards with a view to block our claim and crumple our legal proceedings.
Both Mr. Williamson and myself, took the guidance of Mr. Fletcher at the interview in entire good faith and acted upon same by suspending our legal proceedings forthwith."
In short, these statements are to the effect that, immediately after legal proceedings were commenced, Mr. Fletcher approached the owners with a request for the stay of such proceedings with a view to an amicable settlement; and the words used are capable of being understood as conveying a suggestion that Mr. Fletcher deliberately proposed the stay in order to give the Hongkong Government time to prepare the Indemnity Ordinance.
36. The accuracy of these statements by Mr. Moller and Mr. Burkill may perhaps be called in question.
There is first the use of the word "immediately", with its obvious inference that the legal proceedings caused Mr. Fletcher or the Hongkong Government some perturba- tion. Mr. Moller rightly says that the proceedings were commenced in December, 1919, and he has supplied the date of Mr. Fletcher's alleged request in the passage beginning "Surely Mr. A. G. M. Fletcher cannot forget the interview ". The interview took place on the the 23rd August, 1920, and Mr. Moller's "immediately" resolves itself into a period of more than eight months.
The second point is the statement that Mr. Fletcher approached the owners with a view and a request to stay proceedings. Mr. Fletcher did not approach the owners. The owners approached him. The evidence on this point is as follows:-
Mr. Fletcher to the Hon. Mr. E. H. Sharp, K.C., Counsel for the Hongkong
Government: 24th August, 1920.
Moller and Williamson tell me that Turner from Deacon's office represented to them yesterday that you were anxious to get on with the Wollowra case immediately. I had seen Moller and Williamson yesterday before Turner came to them and we agreed informally that it would be better to let the matter stand over in order that there might be opportunity for consider- ation of certain cases which were now pending at home ".
Crown Solicitor to Messrs. Deacon, Looker, Deacon, and Harston: 25th August, 1920:-
"Wollowra Steamship Co. v. Attorney General.