bra
January 2, 1896.)
THE GOVERNOR AND CHINESE AGITATORS.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT. ·
·we
A
past, by the failure of the British Gov-meeting, although he may have intended ment to allow the colony a sufficient his remarks also to have a more general ly of subsidiary coins. It has been application. And so far as the meeting presed that to take any action to prevent the at the Tung Wah was concerned hort of the products of the Canton Mint think the remarks were ill-advised.
raht result in closing the opposite pro- good deal was said at the meeting to by f ce to the British coins, where they have which exception must be taken, but it is Nund so ready a market; but is such action not a principle of English law to shut a Mecessary? We hardly think so. What is man's mouth because his views do not com- seeded is a plentiful and steady supply of mand the approval of the powers that be. ritish coins, practically unlimited until On the contrary, free speech is recognised they have forced the inferior Cantonese as one of the greatest safeguards of peace coins out of circulation. It is time some and order, because when the people are steps should be taken to relieve the present allowed to air their grievances in a constitu situation and place the currency of the tional manner they are less liable to break colony on a more creditable footing, to say out in tumult. But if His Excellency desired nothing of providing for the facile conduct to take action against the speakers at the of business.
meeting referred to he would not be able to do so under the Banishment Ordinance, be- cause one of them is a natural born and the other a naturalised British subject. Nor would a criminal prosecution lie in connee- tion with anything that was said at the meet ing. It is not easy to see, therefore, what could be done, unless it were to strike Mr. Ho TUNG's name off the Commission of the Peace, and that, we venture to predict, would not be approved by the home Government, for it would be altogether too preposterous to visit a man with any pains and penalties for speaking in favour of the repeal of an obnoxious law, even if in the heat of de- clamation he were betrayed into using indiscrect expressions. His Excellency re cently expressed regret that after fifty-five years of intercourse with us the Chinese community remained so little anglicised. We would venture to submit for His Excellency's consideration that to fine or imprison people for taking a walk along the streets after seven o'clock in the evening or to impose restric- tions on the free expression of opinion on public questions is not calculated to further the anglicising process he has at heart.
che
In addressing the Tung Wah Hospital Committes the other day H.E. the Governor spoke of certain agitators who were stirring up strife in the colony, whose names he knew, and with reference to whom he might deem it necessary to take certain steps if they continued their course. We do not know what steps His Excellency may have in contemplation, hat no measure that the Government has it in its power to take would be too strong in the case of persons who incite their ignorant fellow countrymen to resist the law. In the late coolie strike for instance, which was in its nature a seditious movement, the Government, if it could have laid its hands on the promoters, would not only have been justified in taking the most rigorous measures possible with regard to them, but would have failed in its duty if it had not done so. Under Ordinance 8 of 1882 the Governor in Council has power to
banish any one not being a natural born or naturalised subject of Her Majesty. It is not even cessary that the person banished should have been convicted of any offence in a court of of law, the only proviso in his favour being cesthat the order of banishment shall contain a nanstatement of the grounds upon which it is Tmade. The statement of the grounds might possibly be of service to the person affected should he wish to appeal to the Secretary of frig State, but, saving any instructions that you might be issued upon such appeal, it is eats entirely within the discretion of the Gov- in jernor in Council to banish any alien like whatsoever, whether of Chinese or other wor nationality. The power is a very great one firm and to be used only with great discretion, for but there ought to be no hesitation in using it when there is any clear attempt to stir up resistance to the law of the colony. But between resistance to the law and a con- stitutional agitation for the repeal or slai amendment of an obnoxious law there is a wide difference and it would be lamentable Ger indeed if the Government used its power of banishment for the purpose of restricting freedom of speech,
even though the freedom may be sometimes abused. It would be well, indeed, in this colony if the Chinese could be encouraged to give a fuller expression to their opinions than they have hitherto been accustomed to do, for at present the Government has to work largely in the dark and has no reliable means of feeling the pulse of the native community. As His Excellency's remarks about taking steps against agitators were made in connection with his reference to the meeting held at the Tung Wah Hospital it. may be inferred that he was thinking more particularly of the speeches made at that
to
thi
int
:
SUPREME COURT.
24th December.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE SIR FIELDING CLARKE (CHIEF JUSTICE.)
NG TAT CHI v. CHAN PUI.
His Lordship--Did the plaintiff go to the nuisance, or did the nuisance go to him? five years, and was put up after the plaintiff went Mr. Robinson-The latrine has been open about
to his house, but he was unaware until recently of his means for obtaining a remedy
Evidence in support of the plaintiff's case was then called. Mr. Leigh gave a description of the premises, and said that the latrine was not in a clean condition on any one occasion he
Plaintiff sought to recover $100 damages for a nuisance caused on the defendant's premises Mr. Robinson (instructed by Mr. Ewens) ap peared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Philippo (instructed by Mr. Grist) appeared for the defendant.
visited it, and it was very offensive. witnesses, among whom was Dr. Stedman, who For the defendant Mr. Philippo called said the latrine was well ventilated, and was disinfected with Jeye's fluid.
The case was adjourned until Friday.
27th December.
This case, adjourned from the 24th inst., came on again for hearing. The defendant called evidence and Mr. Phillippo summed up for the defence: Mr. Robinson for the plaintiff was not called on.
case had
come
In delivering judgment the Chief Justice said this was originally a suit for an injunction to restrain the defendant as part owner and oc- cupier of No. 2, Gough Street, used as a public intrine, from causing a nuisance to the plaintiff, the owner and occupier of No. 12, Aberdeen defendant assigned his interest of No. 2, Gough Street, but after the filing of the petition the Street and the petition was amended by the abandoning of the claim to an injunction and the substitution of a demand for nominal damages. Whether the assignment pleaded by the defendant was a bona fide one in the sense of being a real parting 8 matter open to with his interest was doubt. The defence had said they would call the assignee, but they had not done so, and it was proved that the defendant was still actively interested in the latrine as lessee.
This case was exactly similar to one that had been tried by himself in respect of a latrine in West Street in 1894. In that case there had been a non-joinder of necessary parties, but the case on the merits had been fully argued and he had his delivered a written judgment statings opinion that a nuisance had been stab- ished. Subsequently the before the Court again, Mr. Goodman being Acting Chief Justice, and he had delivered a written judgment to the same effect, and an injunction had been granted. Regarding this case as one of considerable public importance he should in ordinary circumstances have delivered a written judgment, but in view of those two judgments formally recorded he thought that might be dispensed with. In this case the same arguments had been used as in that of the West Street case. In spite of evidence to the contrary on one particular occasion it might be admitted that this latrine at No. 2, Gough Street, had been in general as well kept as was possible; the fact that it was subject to daily inspection went to prove that. But looking at the relative positions of the plaintiff's and defendant's premises, the particulars of which Had been detailed by Mr. Leigh, he could not doubt but that it was prob- able, as stated by the plaintiff, that the offensive gases from the ventilators got into his house and caused him material discomfort; in fact it seemed to his Lordship a necessary consequence during the south-west monsoon. As he had already stated in his judgment on the West Street case in commenting on the plea that these latrines were of public necessity, that was no excuse in law for a man inflicting a nuisance on his neighbour, though it might be a good. reason for the legislature taking away the right of action, of course after making due provision for the protection of private interests. The plaintiff's case had been very moderately presented; there had been no allegations of special loss of trade, or of particular sickness, or loss of tenants; but he had no doubt that the plaintiff had suffered material dis- comfort, and that was the point. quence of evidence given counsel for the plaintiff had suggested that he was entitled to amend the petition and claim an injunction, but his Lordship thought that for the present the common law remedy would be sufficient, seeing, as he had already hinted, that if after a verdict for nominal damages the defendant should
Mr. Robinson said the circumstances of the case were out of the ordinary in that at the time of the writ being issued the premises which caused the nuisance belonged to the defendant, but during the interval between the serving of the writ and the filing of the petition and answer he made an assignment of his interest to certain parties. Whether that assignment was bona fide or not the plaintiff was not in a position to say, but the defendant had in his answer stated that he was no longer owner of the premises, and that he had no control over the management of the premises. The plaintiff had therefore amended his petition by leave of the Court, and instead of applying for an in- junction he sought to recover $100 damages. If the injunction had been applied for the plaintiff was prepared to waive the question of damages. In reply to the amended portion of the petition the defendant said that at the time of the issue of the writ the premises were not conducted in a manner offensive to his neighbours. The premises were used as a latrine and were situated at 102, Gough Street, and the plaintiff resided with his family at 12, Gough Street. Mr. R. K. Leigh, architect, had visited the latrine and he would speak of its construction and of the nuisance caused.
In conse-