No. 5986.-JULY 27, 1882.]
.....
it
as
THE CHINA MAIL.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
Thursday, July 27.
SAYLE AND co. v. W. 0. RUMPHREYS.
to
Jul 12
Was
or
350
Law Notice.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF-
HONGKONG.
TELEGRAMS.
Lendus, June 28.-The Australian Urick- turs buat the Combined English team at Chichester in one maings and 203 runs. The Australians in one innings made GOL runs, and the English tean, in their first louings, male 166, and in their second
2. That I honestly believed, when the sense of such proceedings by an adequate that it was not until after conviction that Some argument then ensued no to the Co., it was not intended to invalidate the cantract in engaging in a wholesale Gasi article headed "Tragis Fower" was pub-sentonco, that Mr Bandmann might here he believed himself wrong. He might questions which were to bo put to the jury, in agremont
ness now. The explanation of Mr Hum Jished, that it was a fair and logitininto after be able to any that not only was Mr have been actuated by mistaken motives which the Attomoy Guneral contented that "By Mr Francia-Witness became a phreys that the transactions which the pioto of antirical criticism on the sketch Fraser-Sraith found guilty by the verdict throughout, and his Lordship believed, so there was a question of intention, whether partner in the firm in 1876. The firm had plaintifs had put forward to show that
(fore the Ion, Sir G. Phillippo, Knt,, of Mr. Bandmann's Life in Men of the of the jury but that his Lordship con- fas he could judge of his (Mr Smith's) by the plantilla acquiescence in allowing dealt in blacking, but witness.could not say they had traded wholesale were large tran-
Chief Justica) Time, which had been published in the curred in that verdict to the fullest extent, chater that he really believed he was the defendant to take cnployment with whether they had done so between 1870 snotions only and that wholesale dealing
ORDINAL JURISDICTION, Friday, 28th local papora a for weeks proviously, and and that his Lordship made known by just in advancing the defence he did; Mosera MacEwen Frickel & Co. and Mouse and 1874. They did large wholesalo hun was to sell the articles in packages and that I had not the slightest ronson to his sentence that the offence was a very but no same time his Lordship was J. G. Smith & Co., they intended to waive nose in those years. Could zot say whether Lales as sont from the manufacturer was July, 10.30 am-Sayle and art. But bebeve that anything rued as a reflection Baith had failed to justify may With vided that where justification was ploaded Install remained in the capacity of book-vertised bebeve that anything therein contained grave ono indeed, and that Mr Fraser bound take into consideration in passing their rights to prohibit the defendant from they did any commission business. Wit-sufficient to show that they were not preys.--Part heard.
to
Chicong Kie..Ho Wa and ore. could possibly be construed as a reflection Suith had failed to justify any one of his sentence 0 and 7 Tietoria, which pro entoring into any trade on his own account.ness could not say whether in this ponts in wholesale dealers. With reference in the
Cheung Kiev. Cho Sik Chow-Hearing pun Mr Bard construed as a contained grave ono i that the offence
charges against Mr Bandmann. With vied that where justifiaction was ploaded It might have been that if the defendant question the firm had over beon nd-question of knowledge he subinittud tant Mt Baridmann's private character,
he considered whether or had still.res mentioned that they Never deals in tinned meats, Me Mr Humphreys was going about from house rat, for Probate. 9. That the imputations in the paragraph reference to the recommendation of the it had to be considered whether or had still remained in the capacity of book vértised as wholesale and retail merchante. it was very improbable o
PROBAIT, JURISDICTION.- the goods of of Juno 14th wore fairly made in the belief Jury, if it had boet merely a recem not the evidence was an aggravation keeper is the firas mantioned that they Never deals in tinned meats, or squares that the plaintiffs were not aware that
deceased.-Pstition that thoir truth would remain undisputed, mandation, it might have tied some weight In his Lordship's opinion in this case it would have waived their rights so far. He of glam. Did not communicate to Mr Mr Humphreys was going about from house Chun Yeo, deceased. Petition of Chus
his objections as to his carry of goods as they dealt in. He contin Petition of Lum Chaw, for Probat he was willing to then went on to say that as he was instruc- Humphroys his objections as to his carry to house soliciting eriors for the same kind You, for Probate. and I honestly believed that I was in with his Lordship, but with the reasons was an aggravation
In the goods of Lum Tong, decouted...... privileged to defond myself in the man- given in support of it, he (Me Francis) belleve that the ovidence given on Mr tod he would be able to prove that the doing on Mr Smith's business, or the stops of goods as they dealt in. He confidently
Mrted do-phroys his objections as to his new adopted from the gratuitous, slanderous, would hurally say his Lordship could not Banduann's behalf was inadvertently left feridant had. within the last few months, witness was going to take in future. Witness asked their verdict on these three questions Petition of Lum Chaw, for Probate, and insulting attacks of the prosecutor concur, and he might ask it to be left out of out of the paper, and would not take cominesced, in a small way no doubt, and did ask Mr Humphreys to re-enter his-em- of fact which seemed to him to entirely
That after the case was committed for consideration. They had had strong it into consideration in passing sanin naonewhat irregular way, business on ployment, but defendant said he had alrea-cavor the whole case.
passing which his own ecost a dent in comput
Ile had untered into dy made his arrangements. Mr Locksley
The Attorney Gene and there were only Australian and Straits oxcha
General said the question trial by the Magistrate, the prosecutor con- enough evidence to justify them in charging teuce; but this was a case in which his own account.
The following telegrams, taken from tinned almost cally in various places in this Mr Frasor-Smith with publishing slander His Lordship felt that the sentence. several business transactions and dealt in was not engaged in a similar trade to Sayle was a very simple one and there were only Volan main melting and opprobrious ous and malicious statements knowing them which ust be passed could not be a light the same goods as the plaintiff dealt in: & Co., although, he dealt in some shaitar two issues, which they would have to give Australian and Straits axolmuges, will be Delongst though evidence to justify Dolony using terms towards myself and my newspaper, be falas, or, at least if not knowing them one. Mr Bandmann himself was entitled Ho had taken advantage of the concession branches Alita Roso asked witness's per their attention to. The first was did the
Mies terms towards in his power to injure me to be true or false, or making way
fund to explain later musanges doing everything in and my newspapers and malicious with publishing slanders touce; but thisation in pass
his power to injure me to be false, bot, knowing or caring whether to some consideration, and although he which had been granted him, and somewhat mission to allow Mr Baker to eater horser defendant carry on, ant was he carrying on with the public and preventing me, had they were true or falso, or making any did not press for a heavy sentence ungenerously put forward the plea of partial vice. When anyone was discharged before in Hongkong business anch as he was pro- folt so inclined, frons taking any sters to inquiry into their truth. He would sit yet, he (ir Bandmann) asked though acquiescence as his defence.
the agreement was finished, they allowed Iibited from carrying on by the terms of this Lordship to pass sich
counsel for such a sentence as
him to do as he liked. publicly apologiso
Alexander Finlay Smith said he know the agreement was finished, they allowed bibited from businus anch as he was pro- is agreemout, and the other question was his Lordship to pass such a sentence as his counsel for sucia E. That I express my sind wales interre: B. That I express my sincere regret for would enable all the world to understand would mark the gravity of the offence the defendant who had entered into his Me Francis said the simple questions of did the plainbills by their conduct, als having violated the low, and unjustly and that not one of the slanderous imputations which he (Mr Stith) had committed, and, service in September 1874. He was for fact for the consideration of the jury that they insteld to alter the defendat Blegally porsed the character of the pro- against Mr Bandana had, in the opinion unless a deterrent sentence were passed merly in the employ of Mesars Sayle & Co. seemed to him to be three in number. to carry on that business which was now Recutor, and respectfully subrait myself to of his Lordship, been sustained by a title the cost of a trial in that Court would He
was engaged in
engaged in the capacity of book The plaintifa alleged in their potition that complained of. The first question he di-un
Wish, the man who was arrested at the , anbrata pro- against the morciful consideration of the Court. of evidence,
merely be to encourage other people to keeper nu cred by Mr Francis-Witure with him, whereby Mr Linmphreys bound
they had entered into a certain agreement vided into two, it being to some ex-
question of law and to Cross-examined tent
law and to so and ammunition
hase in Clerkenwell, whore Fenian arme Mr Francis, resurning, and they had no. His Lordship, addressing the defendant, take the law into their own hands us be
It would and ammunition were found, las boom adidavite of aggravation, but he would nak said that after a long and patien: trial e Mr Smith) had done in this case, His said that his brother was in partnership itself, after the expiration of his agrue-extent a question of fact. hir Lordship's permision to put in the (fr Smith) had been found guilty unanirao. Lordship had carefully considered the sea with him during the time Mr Humphrovement with the plaintiff, nos to engage in bo for he "Loniship to any to what committed for trial.
It is rumored that evilence will be given Hongkong Telegraph of the 19th and 20thly by the jury on the second count, and by tec
ly by the jury on the second count, and by tence he should pass upon him and he was in his employ. They were in business as any business or any trade or business to be extent the prohibition was valid. trial, and six to one on the first sourt, and the jury taught it must be one of imprison shipchadlers and storekeeper, niso dong carried on by Bayle & Co., similar to that at der ontruction on the of wadesprend Fenian plots.
the first court, and the jury cats. firni were in the habit of years.
the merciful in this Court within the last few agents. This of goods for the Chinese purposes of first place, had him. the merciful inent. There had not been very many cases business as merchanta sud commission carried on by then, for a period of fourteen words of the agree thats his learned would call his Lordship's attention to what further recommended him
It is reported that the Egyptians are now even he was afraid, would be considered a very consideration of the Court, as thoy con- of libel it this Court within the last few agents. The firm were in the lubit of years. Mr Francis proposed for the friend, but even on the narower ground he opening the Suez Canal, and proparing to
went la serious matter inled Mr Fraser-Batiti siderail he had received provocation and years, and therefore it was not necessary importing quantities of gouts for the Chinese purposes of defence to divide it in considered that the vertict went bu for destroy the banks. in publishing a report of this trial and abse that ho published the libels believing for him to go so far as the law allowed, on commission, amongst these goods, being to two parts. In the first place, had him. Ho contended that the partion Twenty thousand English troops are ready lutely omitted to print or publish one single them in substance to be true. Ho (Mr The sentence of the Comt would be that cloths, flannels, twende, prints etc. He Mr Hungrys, a matter of fact, never contemplated the construction has to proceed to Egypt. France will join
island syllable of the evidence given by Mr Baud-Smith) had filed an affidavit in which to he (Mr Smith) would be imprisoned for would not call the business a drapery sarrical on directly or indirectly sitter in learned friend had ingeniously put up England with 12,000 men, and it is pro-
upon sornetimes addresos ne Lordship had on and int
an his own account any of them. There was no wond in the agreeable that untivo indian troops will be used mann or by any of the witnesses culled on some O some
partnership extent he asked for mitigation of two awonths, and go fur on his or his behalf, and had not even mentioned the punishment upon the same grounds as re- any voice in
any voice in the matter he would be treated draper and linen draper, although it was a the specific business mentioned by the munt to show that the words used were not by England. punishment upon the
London, June 30.-In anticipation of the fact in his report of the trial of their having commended by the jury. In that he said au first class isdemeant. His Lord mere matter of opinion as to whether he plaintiff. Was he a draper, or linen draper, intended to apply to the wholesale and boara callad. Mr Francis did not think it that the articles published in the Telegraph ship auid he might have given him & lengor canle rightly be described as such. Hea haberdasher, mereer or outfitter? He (ir commission business. It was unreason withdrawal of troops from the Home. was necessary for hits to add suy remark and found by the jury to le libels were sentence, but thought the one given would know his brother Mr J. G. Smith imported Banphreys) carried on basiness as a general able to draw suck a nice distinction to survive, it is expected that the army reserves
any with reference to that fact. He would also honestly published, and solely to protect h
Werthe sufficient. He had taken into considers cotton cloth, cotton waste, paints and linen merchant and commission agent. He sold any that so long as Mr Humphroys did will be called out, but un put no stops have
goods for the Chinese market on commis nothing by retail, everything was done not break on the bulk that he was not been taken towards that object. Chinoses and linenley) carried on it? He (comic apply to the who were not by England Indian troops ask his Lordship's
New York, June 30-Guiteon was hanged paper of 21st July Commission to put in the honestly published, and
Mr Francis said he supposed it was un- sion. Mr Humphreys sometimes acted as wholesale. There was another branch of infringing das prohibition and that so soun paper of 21st July containing an article by himself from the insalting attacks made tion the season of the year. Mr Fraser-Smith. In connection with it real the paragraph of the nffidavit in which cossary to say anything about costs.
upon him by the prosecutor. Ilis Loxdalip
assistant in those things of which he had a the question, was Me Humphreys carrying as he broke on the bulk that he had om to-day. he would call bits Fordspection
breach
Ho London, July 1--The House of Commons he would call his Lordship's attention to defendant denied that he intended to in His Lordship said costs were provided special knowledge. He could not distinctly on any other trade or business carried on mitted a bressols of the contract. these few lines
the paragraph of the affidavit o these few lines: As matter of law the jure Mr Bandmann's character. In the 6th for in 6 and 7 Victoria. theso few lines.
renjember of him having canvassed the sale by Shyte & Co. That must be confined thought they could have no doubt of the still debating in Committed the Repros Tardiet was entered. The recommend paragraph his Lordalup said defendant Ind
of goals. Witness thenght he received a to the period during which Mr Hun fact looking to the evidence, that the sion Crime Ireland Bill The Hone sat ution by the jury of the defendant to the very properly expressad his sincere regret
bens, but he could not say that that had phreys was in the cuployment of Sayle business carried on by Mestre Bayle & Co. all last night and will probably continua
besten merciful cose t merciful consideration of the Court, on the for having violated the law and unjustly
been given itin as commission for sales that & Co. It would not be competent between 1870 and 1874 was the same in sitting until Sunday. he had effected. Mr Huruphroya went direct now for Sayle & Co. to start a freal busi- many respects to that carried on by Latest advices from Capo state that affairs grounds that he had required provocation, and illegally aspersed the character of the (Before Sir G. Phillipps, Chief Justice.rom the cuplay of Mesars MacEwen, ness, utterly urconnected with their own Mr Humphreys on his own account. and had published this articles believing prosecutor, and submitted himself to the
employ in Zululand are quieter. the belligerent them in substance to be true, was a moral merciful consideration of the Court. His
Fricket &ply of Messrs are now for Sayle ould not be competesinose carried Frickel & Co. into that of Mr J. G. Smith, business, and in insist that Mr Humphreys It was claurly established on evidence Chiefs having been pacified by the British
ho carried on business should not take any part in that. As a mat- that Mr
that he mat that Mr Humphreys, was not doing Resiinat, Teing Akong said he victory for the defondant."
Lordship said he had to consuler the sen
under the meme of Sue Hing Chong at No.ter of law he proposed to submit to the any of that auct of business sight Constantinople, 1-The murderer of late His Lordship to defendant: Do you wish tence he should pass upon him-3 sentenco
237 Queen's Rowl. He had purchased Court that that clause mist Fensive such or nine years ago. It was not until Commander Selby of H. M. Falcon” has which should not be too sovers, but at the
L237 The Attorney General (the Hon. E. L
reset that th Mr Fraser-Smith said he could only pay same time a sentence which should provent O'Balloy), instructed by Mesars Brereton articles which he could remember gested. There was another question, did his own account, and up to that time he w
preserves, suuntard, cotton thread and reasonable interpretation as he had sug. October, 1881, that he began business on been sentenced to fifteen years imprison- Brereton har articles which cotton thread Messes Sumphreyn was in their employ employ him in any show that Meets Parnell and fifteen Hong rulers, who that he could not comprehend the object of the recurrence of such a thing not only in and Button, appeared for the plaintiff from the defendant. The cotton thread Messen Sayle & Co. carry ou, during the had been in the employ of others who were
other art. tare Mr
Landia, July 2-In the House of Com- the learned counsel in referring to the re his (M: Smith's) paper but in any other and Measts Francis and Maokean, instrue was similar to that contained in this parcei eine Mr Humphropa was in their employ, not bound by the contract, and who enaldote the debate in the Committee on the Poated in the Hongkery Telegraph. Had he which he had been charged had to be taken presented the defendant. port of the evidence in the brink which ap Of course the nature of the offence with tel by Messrs Stephens and Holmes, produced. He had also purchased faune, business as commission agents the prin employ him in any subordinata capacity. prosion Criazo hill lasted until eight received notice that those papers were to be into consideration. With regard to the
cotton umbrellas, noodles, befta, and look cipal busines now carried on by Mr There was no evidence to show that Meetingt evening. After a must stormy sitting,
Mr business The following gentlemon were empan ng glasses. These articles had been pur Humphreya? the only evidence they Sayle & Co. know that Mr Hamplereya had Mr Parnell and fifteen Hong rulers, who put in, he should have papers were to be hich he had been charged had to Pst in, he should have taken steps to for statement that he had published the articles nelle as a Jury: Messes J. E. Sqaior, H.
chased during the last few months. had had of that was Mr Sayle's carried on business on his own bolalf or persisted in obstructing business, wote soms uxplanation. He (Mr Smith) did not believing them to be true, which the jury W. Smith, C. C. Cohon, D. C. Rozario, W. comprehend tion. He (Mr Smith) did not statement that he had with regard to the presented the defendant.
the object of the reference,
Cross-examined by bir Francis-Head and he did not think they did so. There others in the sua line of business until suspended, and finally nine other mein- arged in mitigation of punishment, areware that there were Victoria. The were Roborried on business as of booght airailar Mr J. G. Smith, now caller i beach
Jackson, and J. K. Davis. His Lorcahip maid he (Dir Smith) purbo three classes of
purchase of neodles, 10 was also the question, had Mr Humphreys, October last, when they quietly sot to work bors were suspended for game reason; ever- only made one purchase of neodles, 10 was also the The Attomey General said the plaintiffs boxes containing 10,000 each. He had also since he left Sayle & Co., been carrying on to collect uvidence. He contended that anually the last clause of the bill was passed. to enlivet uvidence. He contended that an Mr indstone domanda urgency for Mon- ported to forence, ported to give a report of what took place be aware that there were then, he must H. F. Darby ported to give a report of what tools placo libel in the Act, 6 and 7 of Victoria. The were Robert Sayle and Berhan Dalton bught needles from Mr J. C. Smith, but precisely the same business with the same infringement had been provod.
that Court. He had put in all the evi-ärst was for publishing or threatening Sayle, who carried on business as general he had not bought ary cotton.
Some argument then ensued hotteen his day. The Attorney General has applied sazious wit
He had people 3 he is now dealing with i
(never of dence that was given by thearing it to publish a libel for the purpose of rapers and outfitters ander the style of booght airular goods to that pureleased Messrs Sayle & Co. never tools any objca Lordship and the lostnud eunsel on to for an injuction against the okannel nosses on his own behalf regarding Mr extorting money. That was punishable Messrs Bayle & Co., and the defendant was fit the defendant from Mr J. G. Smith, tion, but had tacitly acquicaced in what the form of the questions to be put to tunnel works Bandus's treatment of women, but, as with three years' imprisonment with or William (7. Humphreys, who was engaged in and Messes MacEwen Frickel & Co.
G.
fendant from Mr. J. G.
In the University criokot match Cam- his Lordship understood, he had put in without hord labour. The second, for the plaintiffs' employ in the year 1874. The
was now callert & breach of agreement by the jury, and they were decided upon none of the uvidence of Mr Bandman or malicious or defamatory bol, knowing defendant was engaged in England, and at dealer in wollen goods under the name of that acquiescence to not up on his own ac. His Lordship summing up told the jury proceed from Karachi to Suez at once.
Long Aink said he teaded here as a Mr Humphreys, who had been induced by as given in his Lordship's summing up. Lrishga boat Oxford by seven wickets. malicious or defamatory bol, knowing the plaintiffs' employ in the year 1874. The and Messes MacEwen Frichel & Co.
ap
The H.MS. Dryad has boan ordered to of anybody called in his bohadman
half. Mr Fraser-Smith said it was the first with any term not exceeding two years, an agreement with the partners of the fires (amtaining 80 pieces) of cotton prints from into Court and ask him to stop that now. law arising in consideration of the case, budinical Seymour will bombard Alexandrin
the same to be false that was punishable the time of his engagement he entered into Sam Kes. He had purchaseil one box comnt, and it was not in their right to corus that there were a great many questions of Froceed from time he had heard of it, he was not aware and such fine as the Court night award. of Messrs Sayle & Co., an agreement which the defendant. Ho came to know that the Mr Francis then called defendant.
London, July 10-It is expected that the only thing that they had to do was to of it before
The third was for maliciously publishing the Attorney General believed was a very defendant had the goods for sale by a friend His Lordship said if it had been done any defamatory libel, the punishment for ordinary kind of agreement for parties to telling him. Any one could parehase goods ing on business as a merchant end com. He proposed to nu
Mr W. G. Haraphreys said he was carry-give certain findings on the facts of the case. to-morrow (th). The Compuls have gone
certain fat purposely it was an exceedingly wrong which was fine or imprisonment, or both as enter into under similar circumstances, from him. His friend told him than a mission agent. Previously to that he was wou'd put to them as wide as possible, so
intprisonment, or both as defendant had the goods for sale by a friend
He proposed to nule the questions hen board ship.
the questions he on board
Mr Gladstono has withdrawn his threat thing to do. He (Bir Smith) would make inter
is case The Attorney General it appear to the world that would make which was fine or intpris punishment for the Attorney Generaleat which entaining 80 pieces purchased one box that acquiescence to not it appear to the world that he had brought the Court might award. In this case it into under similar circumstances, telling him. Any one could purchase gouds it appear to the world that he had brought was the third offence which was charged. plaintif citi seral then read the great many persuus dealt with the do in the employment of J. G. Grant & Co., that the parties when moving for judgment of resignation in consequetice of the Com- sidence against bir Bandmann's character, Had he boun elarged with the second the memorandum agreement was drawn up
petition, which set forth that a fondant.
where be hall been from February 1879 could taies any legal argument on the case.ons requesting the Government amend to which Mr Handmann had made no reply jury could have found him guilty of simply between the plaintiffs and the defendant gods were got out on commission,
tad th
Cross avamined by Mr Francis: The to September 1881. 1881.
Witness was doing tread over de portion of the agreement on the Repression Bill
doing trade any legal argument ou the casation in consequence of the Co
The Australians beat the Middlesex whatever.
exactly the samo business now as then to which their attention was necessity, Fraser-Smith said that the Hmgkong what he was charged with, and the recom-fendant agreed to enter the plaintiff dealer in drapery, and had purchased from was in Messrs McEwen Frickel & Co. where mentioning that he had never licard the of 8.C00,000 francs for the envy.
smith said that the Hmgkeng what is with and also agresing an
was on the 10th March 1870, in which the de- Mr Fraser-Smith waid that the Hmgkong publishing a defamatory libel; that was between the plaintifa and the defendant
Alli Mahomed Khamis mid ho was a Previous to joining Mr J. G. Smith witness commenting on several portions of it, and Teun by cisht wicketa,
& are
The French Premier is asking for a vote Telegraph published at four in the ends Zagraph being puts were incessarily on mendation of the jury only went to that service we clerk in Hongkong for four gears, the defendant soveral times resently flannels, he was from 1874 to the beginning of 1879, word draper being used to describe any of 8.000,000 francs for the navy
is free artondant was socks etc. Eftersioon the reports were con extent, although he was only charged with and also agreeing antiger other things, doused, in fact the eloquent address of the defamatory libel, not with defamatory libel that he would not entor, in any capacity,
During that time witness solicited orders one in the wholesale trade. He then wen Turkey has finally refused to join the loarned counsel was disposed of in two or knowing it to be false, though the evidotite into any kind of businesa or trade similar received the goods on commission, and had During the earlier part of his connection tiens he would put za them
to
Cross-examined by Mr Fraucis: He com Chineno, taking aumples with hint over the evidenes Hu then said the ques-Stamboul Conference.
to would be as wing it t
A rebellious force under a false prophet three lines. They were not in the habit of might have gone to show that he (Mr to that carried on by the plaintifa, in had sinuilar duealings with Messrs i Ewen with Messrs McEwan Friskel, & Co. witness follows: (1) did the defendant carry on my
to the Soudan, have killed 3000 Egyptian publishing stale news, and if the evidence Smith) knew it to be true. They had Hongkong and Shanghai or within five rickel given by Mr. Batidmann was not in the recommended him to the mercy of the miles thereof, or carry on that class of had bought the same goods from Mess Co. Witness's business consisted of metals, in breach
Frickel & Co. and Mr. J. G. Smith, He had frequent communications with Saylu & of the businesses specified in his agreement tros sent against them..
General Skobeloff is dead." Telegraph, it was stalo,
of his contract? In maswering Court on the greand of great provcen
Sayle & Co. His Lordship pointed out that the evi-tion. His Lardship said that he was with others, within fourteen years after the G. R. Lammert said he had sold aspirits, beer and porter in bottles, in fact whether the
His Lurdahip said that the businesson his own account or in partnership had bought the same goods from Messequent communications with Saylu & of the businesses specilled
eutton piece gooits, cil and stores, wine and this question they would have to consider spirits, beer and poet sale as well as retail, and
fact whether
business specified covered dence of Mra Ogden, Me Inman, Mr unable to see any great provocation. expiration of the term of service agreed considerable quantity of blacking similar anything he could get an order for. He person dealing in any of those articles Schmidt and Mr Ogden had been given in It was true that Bir Handmann had made upon, without first having the consent of the that produced for the deferant
Mr full Mr Bandmann was examined to rebut certain remarks about him before the pub plaintifs in writing. In case of the defend
did no retail business, Witness had been wholesale as well as retail, and in dealing thesale that evidence. He called Miss Beaudet, lication of the article in question, and had ant being so engaged, whether as prin-ong ago he sold a quantity of cloths, two ds yours be was with Sayle & On," At that ride
Cross-examined by Mr Franci-Nutter ad bookkeeper during the four will, these articles on commission. If they and one of two other witnesses, but there sent him an insulting message. But that cipal partner or otherwise, the sum of eto, by auction for Messrs. G. Smith time they did no tossiness as commission persons the next question wout ba, (2)
sun Co. did not think that the words covered thos was no notice of that in his (Ir Smith's) ing so engaged, whether as prin-
no notice of that in his (Mr Smith's) was no justification for publishing a libel, £1,000 at the commencement would bo& Co. He had never been called a draper, geats. They imported goods wilesale did Messrs Sayle de Co. Curry 1 ay
as Mr. Sinith had admifted in his paper, paid as a penalty in addition to the although he had imported cloth and doult and sold hent by nuction. Witness gave other businesses then these uned or pe Mr Fraser-Smith said that having been Provocation was no exause when a man was annual sum of £100. The defendant re-in drapery goods. Messrs Sayle & Co. has an account of what took place. in attendance at Court during the trial heimlicted for unlawfully using weapons. It rained in the employ of the plaintiffs until veg in the wholesale business to his know view between himself and Mr Sayla, who with them, and if so west basiness? If they in drapery gouds. Messrs Sayle & Co. has an account of what took place at an intersilied during the time the defendant was hand boom unable to look after the news was no defence for a man who was charged the Eth May of 1974, when he left. Subac-edge, idinust from the time they emanete. wished him to return to his firm and du found that they carried on businers whole
thest with the crime of murder
couneue de paper himself.
to say he was quently in 1881, before the expiration of ect. He considered that a draper was commission business, but dur a different sale and as coumission agents that were not His Lordship: You say it was entirely provoked into committing the crime; and the fourteen years, be, in breach of the said person who dealt in the retail miness, aut from that of Saylo & C. Witness in duded in the general werds, they ware
opioides
a pas, be, in breach age, ichnost from inadvertently omittel?
siness,ked Mr Sayle for his establish him-anny The nest question would be, dat not only was it no defence, but it was not
person who dealt in the retail menness Mr. Fraser-Smith said he could assure his taken into account in consideration of raiment, and without the consent of the while he thought a man who sold shiete by thanked Mr Sayle for his offer, but told neted to find (3), did the defolainat cairy
commenced the business of the hundred and so forth was Lordship it was. He was not aware until tigation of punishment. No man bad a right draper and certain other trades carried ou
him that he intended to establish him on any such business in breach of hia agres. for was an outfitter that moment that the evidence had not ap to take the law into his own hands; and by, and detrimental to the business of, the priuts etc. from the defendant, he had made there's an end of it," and no more was said. posing they considered that the defendant
Khamisa Jhooms said he had purchased self (witness). Mr Sayle said "Oh theo, ment. The next question would be, sup. (Taken at Mesers Falconer & Co.'s Premises,
Queen's Road): peared.
Smith) had no right to publish plaintiffs, who therefore praped for an in- similar purchases from Masyre MacEwen Witness had invested $10,000 in his busi had carried on business in breach of his Francis said that, in addressing bia these articles to retaliate upon Mr Band- junction The Attorney General then said Wrickel de Co. and Messrs J. G. Smith &
HONGKONG, July 27, agreement, (4) did Masers Sayle & Co. Masers Sayle & Co. Lordship on the subject, he did not propose ann or to defend himself. With regard to the defendant had pleaded in answer to the to say anything with reference to the plea the first article, entitled "Tragic Power," it petition. He admitted that he entered
By the Attorney General: Witness hand waive the strict carrying out of the BAROMETER-- Chu Akwang said he carried on business all piece goods and famels wholesale on agreement, and if so to what extent? of justification which had been filed in con- would appear from the evidence given at into the agreement and that he remained as a dealer in all kinds of foreign goods at his own account since 1881. He imported They could not look at this questionTo nection with the case, or the evidence called the trial that he (Mr Smith) Bought in the service of the plaintifh until 1874, No. 249 Queen's Road. He had bought anchors on eanazission, as also needles without taking into consideration the to support it, or the prossdings during the for that articlo--he had had an original when he left, and, with thoir permission, blacking from the defendant on one orea. Sayle & Co. sold by the piece to Chinese waiver. It was admitted that Mears trial as they must be thoroughly before copy in his possession but he had entered into the service of certain firms in blocking from
tuilors and Indian traders. Lordship's mind. There was not the aislaid it so he went and sought for a Hongkong for several years. The defend-
He had in- Sayle & Co. permitted the defendant to go his
Cross-examined by Mr Francis:He had vested $10,000. About a third of the to Mesare MacEwen Frickel & Co. na ac. leasi necessity to call hin Lordship's atton-copy, and
sud the presumption which his Lord-ant denied that he had recently set up not bought any gouds from Messra J. G. sua could not be taken out of the concern contant, but
dine they
it was contended that they tion to the fact that in point of law the plea ship imagined the jury drew was that he business of the drapery kind, and in the
it was Me
Smith & Co. this year.
under twelve months. of justification, persised in Mr Fraser- that press privileges, hements had ceased, such breast of the plaintiffs. The
did not consent to his carrying on business of justification, persevered in to the very was annoyed with Die Bandnanabe alternative he had another defence which th Jest moment, and emphasised in Mr Fraser- (Mr Smith) had said that he was unaware was that if he had committed any breach Wong Pak Lum said he had purchased
TN. Driscoll was called, but threw no by himself. Supposing they found that there was no waiver of the agreement (5) was any Smith's Anal address to the jury, was a that press privileges had been withdrawn, of agreement
breath was with the full consent and March last, and forty-four bed-covers in
S. 8. Lowe said he was a commission for hintself or others with their consent or business carried on by the defendant either matter of ingravation. With reference to and that the advertisements had ceased, ouchement an alleged by the plaintiffs, some unbrellus from the defendant in light on the case. the report published on the 19th and 20th but had never been stopped-annoyed at acquiescence of the plaintiffs. The defend, May.
agent, under the style of Harris Goodwin with their knowledge, and if of July, he would all bia Lordship's atton some remarks which had sons to his ears, and further contended that his mucenient.
with their knowledge, and if so when was Co. He dealt in goods of all descrip. Chu Awai, buyer of tto Chung Shing shop&Co. tion to the fact that the report terminated and therefore published the article. It was in restraining trade, was of such a kind as in Queen's Read, said he had purchased
options.
Witness imported hats, stockings, their coutent given, or at what period in this way. After giving the whole of the quite true that if it had been nothing more this honourable Court would not enforce. 1074 yards of coloured daunel from the deshirts &e. He could not be called an outdid they obtain knowledge. evidence of the 19th-ho had given the evidence of the 19th-ho had given the then a criticism on the sketch in Men of the The Attorney General then submitted the fendant in March last, and later on 100,900
The jury retired, and after a short ab- onfitter, a draper or haberdasher,
sonce returned and answered the first two wante evidence of Mrs Ogden, Mr Inman, The he might have been justified in pub- on those pleadings there were substantially needles. He had also bought 10 dozen Bir Steuart Fraser-Smith said i was suestions in the negative, which was con- of Mir Schmidt, of: Bir D'Orsay Ogden, of lishing it, provided he did not do it for the only two questions on which the jury could umbrellas, some blacking, cuantity of book-keeper in Messra Haylo & Co.'s from sidered sufficient. Mr Jaaten Parker, of Mr James Hedge, purpose of annoying Mr Handmar.n.
of annoying into consumed that doubtedly for the purposed would he
Mr Handmarn. Whon be asked to give their opinion. The fixat sailors nape, several boxes of white thread 1874 to 1877. Bir Black was manager from His Lordship, en Mr Francis' applica and mentioned the fact that Mr George they came to take into consideration was whether this contract, a contract un- and other articles. He had purchased the 1874 until 1870. He knew that the defend- tion, entered judgment generally for the Murray Bain was wanan but that no ovidenos was giver Me Bandmann with whether such
put in the witness bez, the nature of the article, it appeared that doubtedly in restraint of trade, was un-same dessription of articles from Messrs ant was in the employ of Mesars MacEwen defendant, with costs. but that no ovidenes was given by him the whole of that article was vagne, reasonable the purpose for which it Sayle & Co., Mesere MacEwen, Frickel Friskel & Co. Borne of whose hills he had he then went on to report that Mr Fraser and had no point, but when they cum was entered into, and the second would he & Co., and Messrs J. E. Smith & Co., and seen. He saw the invoice of Home fannel Smith said that was his onse, and to the article charging Mr Bandwann with
and to the article charging Mr Bardann with whether such a permission or sach ac other firms.
of
goods which, that firm had sold. He had that the Court adjourned for tiffin. The hg him. A siriking actor, then the jury doubtedly it had been to some extent given the whole of the goods purchased from the say to Mr Black, Masirs Bayle & Co.'s
heing a woman beuter, and the other term- quiescence as might have been given, un- Mr. Fraser-Smith's so riga of articles on
Cross-examined by Mr Francis Hearly heard Mr Bayne, who was in charge of the next thing was Mr. Frazer-Smith's speech ing a in addressing the jury, which occupied two were quite justified in looking at it by the plaintifs,
which occupied two were quite into a particular capacity in
the defendant cloth department of Mesars Sayle & Co.,
entor defendant were bought on commission. columns, and in which he repeated every as one of a series of articles holding the plaintiffs, to the defendant to entor the service of
manager, that the defendant was influencing slanderous statement made against My up Mr Handmann to the world as a Meases MacEwen Frickel & Co., atmounted, Mr B. B. D. Sayle said he was a partner the faunal goods trade in favour of Mears Bandstann, yet he could not spate one line man who was in the habit of beating vognen, as was alleged in the answer, to a waiver of the firm of Sayle & Co. In 1870 Mr MacEwen Frickel & Co. in 1874.
A fish to any that evidence was called for the With regard to the other article,
the other article, heat of the contract under which the plaintiffs Humphreya was engaged. Witness had sold
A fishinonger named Kung Ayau, who Mr Francis, in addressing the jury, said had been convicted of crimes on. seven defence. There was only one thing which Smith) rosted his defence on a caso which alleged he was bound. As regards the first goods on account of the firm, and on com-
there were three questions of fact on which that upon the facts, mission. With reference to all the godd could be said on his side, and that was, that he His Lordship thought had no application he would submit, that upon the facts, mission. With reference to all the godda
which previona that was seemed to be totally agaorant of his dutice as whatever to the present circumstances. If which were very simple, the restraint in the mentioned, he carried on trade in theru. be considered they had to give their verdict. ronths' imprisonment with hard labui
present circum alleged he was
They could have no hesitation in coming to of silk trousers from ajouronlist. The right to publish reports of when he was, first taken before the Police case was not unicasonable. The agreement Már Humphreyn' agreement expired in 1874, the conclusions that 32r Hamphreys, wao for stealing throw pairs a journalist. The right to publish reports of when he was first taken before the Police occasion, was sentenced to six Courts of Justice depended on their being Magistrate, and after Mr Bandman's was
ate, and after Mr Bandman's was one which any form in the position of wher depanders
victed of assault the plaintiffs might very well it from phreys wishing to at in the same line of forlly named in the agreement. There
was one which any firm in the position of when Mr Black was manager for the firm, was given wholly and entirely The paper of denial of having been convicted of assault Hun-o the Biet of Joly, he (M: Francie) simply ing Mes Bousby, ho (Mr Smith) at the plaintiffs might very well insist upon Shortly thereafterwitness heard of Mr Hun. not now carrying on business in violation of the 2let of July, he (Mr Francis) simply ing Mrs Housby, ho (Mr Smith) axl pub when engaging clerks to come out from phreys wishing to join MacEwen Frickel, agreement with Blessrs Sayle & Co. in put in for this purpoac Mr Bandraann Hished an apology he would have stood in a England, because those whom they engaged & Oo, who were hat in the same line of any one of the capacities which were speci
Mr Bandraann lished an apologation than he did now. He and might employ for a little acquired Humphreye stern was limited to that, which he thought the wurde, ordinary had been oxlered away by a Siadatened and hundreds.
Robert Samuel Gerard, an anemployed had been on his trial just as much as Mis much better position than he did now. Ho una because the whom they engaged
and wight employ for a limited time might business. No objection was raised to Mr fically nained in the agreement. There had Fraser-Smith. He came there to vindoste had said he did not do this because Mr Bakery
had done Bandmann was abusing him; that ought to in theton placed upon them in the way run 1678. About the same time Mr ment referred to The second question to strike the offer. He was only released tons, heut in the open air is a shaded sitaation,
do this because and out from phreys
house take advantage of the status they acquired Hamphreys entering that firm as a book been no evidence to show that Mr Hum seaman, was fined 82 or seven days im- his character, and a jury had done Bandman was abusing him; that s
ought to in their of the status they acquired Hampar in pacities which were speci ought to in their employment. If there wers no kesper, but consent was limited to that phreys was engaged in the retail trade prisonment for being drunk and disorderly
ment. If raised to Mrfically named that to considerable extent, but per have had no effect with him whatever in the restrictions placed upon them in the way Mr Humphreys continuse in that employ words.
restrictions placed upon them in the way Mr Humphreys continued in that employ which he thought the wurde, ordinary at the Police Court yesterday morning. Ho
words and in common use, in the agree when he became obstreperans and threatened and hundreds. sor Socking into libelasse such as pally an Mr Bandmann ha cortainly up on their own secount to the detriment rays left with him. Witness was obness in any glass of goods dealt in any from four looking into libel ose such as performance of his duty. If he had reflect done in this agreement, they might not ment until 1879. About the same time Mr wer this would look not only to see what od tajually J. G. Grant left the firm and Mr. Hun was
ed
and Mr Hument what ought to have apologised. Instead of that, and injury of their employers not aware that Mr Houphroys was acting of the branchos of trade which Mestre British steamer gean, was found lying wis the verdict of the jury but to see what ought to have apologised. Instead of that, and injury of their employers, phrays left with him. Witness was hot was hu carrying on
and injury of their employers phreys left with him. Witness was not was hu carrying on a wholesale bus to strike the officer. He was only released was the opinion of the presiding judge, and however, he had defended himself before Mr Francis here said that he did ness in any class of goods dealt in any fram gaol on Monday, the see his defence. He
Thomas Fay, senman belonging to the DIRECTION OF WIgn is registered every twr the sentence passed would mark that the Police Magistrate, and put is a ples of think the statement made by his learned otherwise than us book-keeper. Witness Bayle & Co. dealt in at the time he was in British steamos Egean, was found lying opinion. He saked his Lopship to mark fatication in that Court, and went into
into as
Hade the did not Phray Grant Is About in that to that clearly by the sentonos he would pronounce his defence. He had arimitted that he had friend was right. Ho submitted that the went to England, returned in 1870, and Sayle & Co. dealt in at the time he was in British steamer Egean, was found
more serious question of whether the restraint was a rea- learned that Mr Humphreys was in charge their employ. He thought the contract in an incapably drunken condition on the hit tease of the wants uncalled for, and been unable to prove the store serious sonable one or not was one for his Lord of Mr J. G. Grant's business, but witness intentions on objects which the parties has Blation. He wastad 61 or three days
must be interpreted with reference to the Praye yesterday night, and taken Lord of Mr. J. G. Grant's business, but it intentions or objects which the parto, he Cloudy. D. Driztly. F. Foz. G. Foggy #
to eference to the Siation. Ho waned 61 or three days siallelous nature of the libchy published by charges, but he had called witnesses belong ship, ant not for the jury. It was laid said he would not take any steps until Mr in thing out on this tant it was word, had suprisonment, and ordered to be put on Mr Fraser-Smith, of the character of his ing to Mr. Bandmann's troupe to show that down so in the tart books. The question of Smith returned, he then being in England in thighs that their intetition must have beard his ship if still in harbour, puten conduct, subsequent to thess libels, and of Me Bandmann was not a confirmed wo acquiescence was also one for his LordAhip On Mr Smith's retum there was a quarrel de gheat to the area o the complete failure of any proof given in man beater, he did uso bad language to the to breed of that Cours to sny langed wo acquiescence. that Court to pustao one tittle of the ladies of his company. That was no de- to deade. The questions of fact for the heteroan him and Mr Humphreya, in couse only referred to the branches of trade the jury, it stented to him, watu fira, had the guance of which Mr Humphreys resigned, his strict on to the ther charges that Mr Fraser Smith deliberately enter aviding e.or charges that Mr Fraser Swith deliberately fence, or huistication Beatles, her defendant been carrying on business similar and started trading on the fact that he is to carry on As there was no evidence Russell. This Illustrated Pamphlet on Per-
IBSTETES, Frans-Smith (Mr his own account. they had it in their immediate contemple THAMES-STEEPS INbogreres, by Pereys are supraiad to made and repeated not once but prore
Smithistication aprte his address to the jury, not only with platatine, and second, hail the defendant was trading under the style of Humphreys wholcane or commission business in 1874, gratis from any Chemist or dealer in perhours (2001) are registered from 1 to 24 and sprered Sith) had repeated his assertions in defendant been carrying on first, had the qusnce of which Mr Humphreys resin olaintiffs to the branches of trade the
Smith had repeated his assertions, in or identical to that carried on by the Having secured evidence of the fact that he to show that the plaintiffs had parried on a fumery, d., published at 6d., niay be had the mean average of their figillation times with referença to Bir Bar am. It his addreia to the jury, not only with is, was My plaintifs,
as only with a view to Me Randman's regard to that, but also with regard been carrying on this particular business & Cc, he put the use into the hands of sided that the defendut could not
of & the quantity of water fallen indiested in inches, character, to his future vindication, that he to the Mrs Rousby case. It might be, It might be
be for the last eight years with the knowledge Mr Wotton. Be giving consent to defend he contended that the defendant could not famary in the World, or JOEN GOSSEL hours (200) are segistered from 1 to 24, and cked that his Lwushin should mark vi and his Lordship thought it nowible, of the paintifs
ant to enter Maps MoEwen, Frickel & be said to have breu guilty of a breach of Co, London ADE
paper.
to justific the the Pro chores
is
as
Co.
sien.
•
A
til
neu
lia
"QE
Police Intelligence, (Before H. Thomeet, Eaq) Thursday, July 27.
matine hawkee,
LARCENY,
DRUNKS.
stabli
ble,
The rising, and now quoted at £102 per
Quotations.
Hosowne, July 27,
OPIUM-New Patua, cash,...2000
OM
* Cash,...8563 € 870 New Benaros, celý obá Old
cash. 550
New Malwa, credit. 020
Allowance, Taels 48 Old Malwa, credit,... 680 Allowance, Taels...... 43
Temperature.
9 AM
Do.-
1 T..
Dio. THERMOMETER
4 P.ME
DAVE...
Do
.
Do
29.900
29:872 29.808
85 1P.MA: 85 4P.3. (Wet bulb) 9'..
Do 3 PM 80 Do4.H, Maximum
Do. Minimum over night
80
£ 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Foren of Wind Huora of
Weather
o.b. Wat T'mometer 79.0 Day Tmometer. 83.5 Direction of Wind SE
meter atlashed. 84.0 86.0
Rain..~*
Quantity
79.5
BZ.
80.0
..
TER, &c.
Baroüreter..............29.78 39.83
THERMOME
BAROMETER
Previous
day at
On date
10 ANG
Frevious
day at
4PM.
Oa
Previous
1
day at
4
On dato
at
10AM.
On date.
TELEGGARS OF 17TH JULY 1882
Докакала.
Auar
SHIVOTAL
`MANILA
CHINA COAST. METEOLOGICAL REGISTEIL
at
10 4.
On date
4PM.
BAROMETER, level of the sea in lonbee, fans,
THERMOMETEn, in Fahroabbit decreos and
pointe, N., F.N.E. NEL SO HER
FORCH OF WAX, cust. 1 to 8 lgbt breaza.
o
8 to 6 derale. 6 to 7 fresh 7 to 8 streng
3 to 10 beary: 10 to 12 solent,
BEATE
rare oF WEATHER-E. Clear blue sky, 0.
Hell. L. Lightning f. Misty," Ü. Overensk
londy
P. Passing showers. Equally, R. Painy.
B. Soow T. Thander Bud, threatening,
7. Visibility. Storm. 2, Calin. The let fars are repented to indicato any increase c
significatips. RAIN The hours of rain for the previous 24
fina and hundreda, SIMPEZA