Page
September 26, 1895.]
asked me what revenge I was having, and I stabbed her as well.”
The prisoner said this statement was false. About ten constables surrounded him in the cell, beat him, and compelled him to say what he did. Acting Inspector Witchell and the interpreter denied that any force was used; the statement was made voluntarily.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE RÉPORT.
Mr. Robinson-I do not know anything about that.
His Lordship-I remember it perfectly well. He has been in Mr. Ewens's employ for some time.
Mr. Robinson-I am not informed of that. His Lordship Against whose advice was the agreement drawn?
Mr. Robinson-Mr. Ewens. His Lordship-And it was drawn by his
Mr. Robinson-Drawn in a technical sense of the word, yes.
A statement made by the prisoner at the police court, and which he relied upon, was then read. It was to the effect that he had been pre-clerk ! : viously employed by the girl's father, and on the 22nd July he went for his wages. The father got drunk on samshu, abused him, and threatened to chop him. The father then got a chopper and hacked the old woman and then the girl, who tried to escape. It was while going to the station, prisoner said, that he was arrested.
The jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty.
His Lordship (to the interpreter)-Tell the prisoner I think he went as near murder as a man could very well go, If it had not been for the skilful treatment that the old woman re- ceived at the hospital she must have died. I now have to give him a sentence which he must well feel, and which will have the effect of pro- tecting the public from such a violent man as he is for some considerable time. He is sentenced to eight years' imprisonment with hard labour and two floggings of twenty-five strokes each with the rattan on the breech within the first six months of his sentence.
23rd September.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE SIR FIELDING CLARKE (CHIEF JUSTICE).
LỈ CHUNG PUI V, LI SING. Plaintiff petitioned for a receiver of the estate of Li Laong and Li Yuen Kong in place of the defendant.
Mr. Pollock and Mr. Sharp (instructed by Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Robinson, for Mr. J. J. Francis, Q.C. (instructed by Mr. Ewens), re. presented the defendant, Mr. Francis being indisposed. Mr. Dennys had leave to attend the proceedings on behalf of Li Lai Wo, plaintiff's brother.
-་༼༽་
Mr. Pollock said the summons was taken out by plaintiff in chambers, and the matter was adjourned to the Court. He did not know whether his Lordship had before him a notice of motion filed by the defendant asking the Court to sanction an arrangement which was alleged to have been made by the parties in settlement of the case. With regard to that he submitted that it was not competent for the Court to go into the subject now, as no notice had been given, and further-this was a technical objection-that the defendant was entirely wrong in taking out notice of motion to sanction the alleged agreement for settlement. The agreement was repudiated altogether.
His Lordship said the other side could bring in the agreement in order that the Court might see if it was such as could be recorded.
Mr. Robinson submitted that the proper course would be to adjourn the present proceed ings in order that the two matters might be disposed of together! If the Court thought fit a jury could be ordered to try the issues.
His Lordship-Does the agreement bear the name of the solicitor whose clerk is supposed to have drawn it?
Mr. Robinson-It has nothing to do with any solicitor.
His Lordship-It is drawn by a solicitor's
elerk.
Mr. Robinson-The draft is by a solicitor's clerk, but there was no solicitor. It was drawn against the advice of one solicitor; it was done by the parties behind the backs of their advisers. His Lordship-Is it not a fact that this clerk is a sort of head man or managing clerk in Mr. Ewens's office?
Mr. Robinson-Mr. Ewens has the man in his office,
His Lordship-I remember seeing the name before in connection with other proceedings in which there was a suggestion that he was en titled to a commission in the business,
His Lordship-In what sense is it not? Mr. Robinson-He had nothing to do with the agreement. When the agreement was made between the parties he reduced it to writing.
His Lordship-That is drawing it. Mr. Robinson-In that sense, yes.
His Lordship-That is how a lawyer is employed sometimes.
233
do not feel able to make an order to-day. I must take some time to consider how far the order ought to extend, and as far as this question is concerned I must adjourn. I must say that it does seem to me that this is a case in which it would be very advantageous to everybody if a settlement were arrived at--not a settle- ment outside a lawyer's office, or in one lawyer's office and outside the other, but a settlement between the parties fairly and distinctly arrived at. There is a strong probability that every single one of the Chinese people interested in the matter knows perfectly well whether the money came from Li Laong's estate or not. It is a matter, when they get to issue, involving a lot of conflicting evidence, and the long enquiries and the appointment of a re- ceiver mean needless expense. The administra- tion by the Court will lead to a substantial His Lordship-In what sense is it not so? diminution of the property. As far as I see st Mr. Robinson-The man was not consulted present-I have not seen very far and therefore about the making of the agreement. The it would be rash for me to come to any con parties simply said, "Write that out inclusion, and I do not do so at all-as far as I English."
see at present, although I think there have been great irregularities and informalities, I am not dissatisfied--and I throw this out as s suggestion for the parties to consider-I am not satisfied that there has been any dis- honesty in the administration of the estate. As far as this suggestion is worth anything I think it is as well to express it. If the parties fight all the possible questions that may arise in this Court, or before the Registrar, or any other tribunal, my opinion goes for nothing whatever. I only say that I have a number of affidavits, and although at first blush there is enough on the face of the affidavits to create a very grave suspicion of fraud, I certainly, in my own mind, am not satisfied that there has been any such fraud or misconduct on the part of the defendant. I rather venture to hope- although I do not wish to bring any pres sure to bear on the parties--I hope, for the sake of preserving this property dan for the sake of those benefiting by it, that they will see their way to arrive at some settlement; a settlement not in any sense snatched by one side from the other-I do not mean to say that that has been done already- but a settlement deliberately talked over, con- sidered, and agreed upon. I venture to think that if the parties can approach the matter with the view of settling the case in that way that would be a very good way of ending the litigation. At present I will consider what order for a receiver I can make.
Mr. Robinson-Generally a lawyer gives advice; he may be directly employed as a elerk to copy out documents. That was the position of Sing Tak Fan, the clerk; he had no consulta. tive voice in the matter.
His Lordship-It appears from the affidavits that Mr. Ewens was aware of the agreement.
Mr. Robinson-He was aware of the agree- ment being proposed.
His Lordship And of the agreement being drawn by his clerk ?
Mr. Robinson-No.
His Lordship You say that Mr. Ewens was not aware of the document being drawn by his clerk. That is so, is it?
Mr. Robinson-He was personally aware that his clerk drew up a document; he now knows it was this document.
His Lordship Of course.
Mr. Robinson contended that an adjournment of the case was the proper course to adopt. The important question was, was the agreement validly mâde ? If it was the plaintiff had no right to bring this suit..
His Lordship-I think notice had better be given. It is exceedingly desirable that this matter should be enquired into.
-
Mr. Pollock I ask your Lordship to go on with our present application for a receiver?
His Lordship-Oh, yes.
Mr. Robinson asked that the case should not go on, as if the agreement was valid the plaintiff was stopped from making the present applica- tion.
the Logically speaking,
agreement question came before the other, as it had to be first determined whether plaintiff had a right to make a motion for a receiver
:
His Lordship said he would go on with the motion for a receiver.
The facts of the case were somewhat com- plicated. Li Laong died and left his property to be divided equally between five families. Li Yuen Kong, the head of one of the families, The defendant is the afterwards died. executor under both wills, and for the plain tiff, one of the survivors, it was contended that the administration of the estate had been improperly carried out, and that no accounts had been filed. Many affidavits were produced in support of the plaintiff's case, and Mr. Pollock argued at some length. For the defendant Mr. Robinson said that no
out for the appointment had been made of another receiver inasmuch as the plaintiff had received property from which he derived an income of $14,000, and which was his proper share of the estate. All the other beneficiaires were satisfied with the administration. There was, however, disagreement as to whom this property belonged to.
case
18th September.
In Summary JuRISDICTION.
BEFORE MR. A. G. WISE (ACTING PUISNE JUDGE).
KEW V. BOTTLEWALLA.
R. Kew brought an action against E. Bottle- walla to recover $20, a month's wages. Mr. On the 1st Gedge appeared for the defendant. August plaintiff gave defendant a month's notice, and on the 9th of the same month de- fendant dismissed Kew for impertinence and refused to pay him his wages. Judgment for defendant.
20th September.
· THE HOONG SHING AND KONG SIN SUNG
V. HOPKINS.
Hoong Shing sued Hopkins, Cumming and. Co. for $46.58 for goods sold, and Kong Sin Sung sued R. G. Hopkins for $305.17. Mr. Holmes appeared for Hopkins, admitted the debts, and consented to judgment.-Verdict for each plaintiff with costs.
FLETCHER AND CO. V. a. Jorge) Plaintiffs brought an action against A. Jorge, a clerk in the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, to recover $14.20. Defendant did not appear. and judgment was given against him.
After hearing the arguments on both sides his Lordship said-At present I am satisfied in my own mind that if this case is going on there
BHANZA SINGH V. T. M. LOPES. will be a necessity for a receivership; but really I do not know how far it ought to extend. The Plaintiff, who is a member of the Asiatic Ar- matters seems to me to be very mixed up. The tillery, sought to recover $140 from the defend- administration was very informal and curious, ant, a clerk in the Naval Yard.-Defendant ad- and there is certainly something in Mr. Robin-mitted the debt and said he had to support nine son's suggestion that if there was a bona fide possession of the property you cannot disturb that possession by altering the receivership. I
children and was only getting 884 a month. The money was lent by plaintiff, who charged a very exorbitant rate of interest.—Plaintiff con