June 24, 1896.]
intention to leave with an excess of passengers. They kept up the port anchor for another purpose and not for the purpose of going with all the passengers on board. When the police boarded the steamer the compradore returned.
Witnesses were then called for the defence. Solomon Uecker, said—I am chief officer on board the Petrarch. I remember passengers coming on board on the night of the 27th May. The captain was not on board then and when he came on board I told him there were more than twelve passengers. The captain told me to send for the compradore, who was on shore. I asked the captain when we should start and he said as soon as the compradore returned. I did not send the coolies ashore because they could not understand me. I had no boats to send them ashore, and waited for the compradore, who came on board after the police came; I do not know how long after. I started to get the port anchor up before the police came on board; I started to get it up about one o'clock. I always get up one anchor two hours before the ship leaves, in order to have less trouble. I do not know whether the steamer attempted to leave the colony. We left at eight o'clock in the morning with only twelve passengers. The remainder had been sent ashore.
Tong Shen Hing, clerk to the Wo Kee Com- pany, said-Chow Tak Won is the manager of the Company and he is now in Canton; he went there in April last and returned on the 9th June and went back on the 15th inst. The Wo Kee were charterers of the Petrarch, and I was in charge. The Company issued twelve passenger tickets for the Petrarch. The slips produced are applications for passenger tickets, but no tickets have been issued on them. The people holding them must have gone on the Petrarch by mistake. I only issued two of them; these were in addition to the twelve tickets, but they were not for the Petrarch.
His Worship held that the defendant did at- tempt to leave with the excess of passengers. Two anchors had been down and one of them had been lifted. That showed an intention to leave; the two anchors could not be lifted at There were really 122 passengers in excess and the defendant would be fined $3 on each of them and a further fine of $100, or $466 altogether.
once.
Mr. Ewens announced his intention to ap- peal on a point of law; he did not dispute the
fact.
There was also a summons charging the Wo Kee Company as consignees with unlawfully deriving profit from the tickets, and this sum- mons was adjourned pending the appeal.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
The Board shall have power by its officers to enter and inspect upon reasonable notice."
His Worship-You say that the Board has to send notice that the Inspector is to come.
Mr. Reece The law says so; "reasonable notice." The Inspector came without notice and instead of requiring the owners to remove the partitions, which of course is the gist of the matter, a summons was immediately issued and they were brought up at the Police Court on the 11th June, when the case was remanded. The owners took steps to get Mr. Danby to look at the premises, and Mr. Danby advised them to remove the shelves which were at the back of the shop the shelves which formed the parti- tions which are said to be illegal. I admit the cockloft was illegal, when the shelves were there, but they have been removed, and they were removed as soon as the owners knew they were illegal. Mr. Danby will tell your Wor: ship, if necessary, that there is nothing illegal on the premises at this moment. They have applied for leave to erect a cockloft for storage purposes only, and if your Worship looks at the plan you will see the exact place. The only offence charged against the defendants was haring a cockloft, or something in the nature of a cockloft, in a room partitioned off into separate compartments the compartments con- sisting of shelves which have now been removed; and the defendants have applied for permission to erect a cockloft in accordance with the law and in accordance with the regulations of the Sanitary Board. I ask your Worship not to inflict a penalty, or, if you do, to inflict only a nominal penalty.
His Worship said he would hear some of the eridence.
John Reidie, Sanitary Inspector, said-At 4 p.m. on the 10th inst. I visited the ground floor of 166, Queen's Road Central, with the written permission of the Sanitary Board, under by-law 10 made under section 13 of Ordinance 15 of 1894. I saw a cockloft on the ground floor, 7 ft. 2 in. by 14 feet, being maintained in a room which was partitioned off in compart- mcuts. The cockloft was illegal, because it did not have a space of 9 ft. 2 in. below and 6 ft. 4 in. alore. I supervised the removal of the coc loft on the 10th or 11th April last, I told whilst the place was being cleansed. him at the time that he would not be allowed to have it. A new çockloft has since been erected.
By Mr. Reece-The old cockloft extended 10 or 11 feet over the room. There were parti. tions in the room then. I do not know when the new cockloft was erected. I saw it first on the 10th June and issued the summons on the LEGAL AND ILLEGAL COÙKLOFTS. 11th. I did not give defendant any notice to
MORE TROUBLE,
At the Police Court on the 19th June, before Hon. Commander W. C. H. Hastings, the two masters of 166, Queen's Road, were charged with maintaining a cockloft on premises where the room was divided into separate compartments.
Mr. Reece said he appeared for the defen- dants and the charge was brought under sec- tion 7, sub-section 1, of Ordinance 15 of 1894. Counsel then proceeded-I have seen the place myself and Mr. Danby has seen it, and I admit that technically there was an offence; but in mitigation I should like to say a word or two. It seems that on the 11th April last the cock- loft on the ground floor of these premises, 166, Queen's Road Central, was removed by the whitewash brigade, or by the Sanitary Inspec- tors, and after that no complaint was made. It was assumed by the owners of the shop that the place then was in a legal state, and there was no complaint made or any objection made to the state in which it was left. It was left with some shelves about six or eight feet from the back of the shop. There was some sort of erection-I do not know whether it was strictly a cockloft--but there was some sort of storey erected at the back part of the room.
No notice was ever given to my clients that this was illegal; no notice was given to them to remove it, and no reasonable notice was given, as is required by the Ordinance, of any intention to inspect the premises; but on the 10th June an Inspector went there without giving reasonable notice of his intention Section 11 of Ordinance 15 of 1894 states |
abate the nuisance. I saw to-day that the partitions had been removed.
Mr. Reece-Do you know that the owners have sent in an application to the Sanitary Board for leave to erect a cockloft in accord- ance with the plan ?
Witness-Yes. No permission is necessary. Mr. Reece I think you will find it is neces- sary under Notification 372. Does it not say, No permission will be granted for their con tinuance except for storage purposes only "P
Witness--Yes; "where such room is divided off into separate compartments and then only." There are no partitions shown on the plan and so no permission is necessary to erect and main tain the cockloft.
Mr. Reece-It is not strictly a cor-loft. Witness-You admitted it was some time ago. say it is.
The parts extend over the whole length of the fcor and are made to lift up.
I
Mr. Reece, in further addressing the Magis- trate, said there was nothing to show that the defendants were aware of the illegality of the cockloft; it was much smaller than the old one, and defendants did not intend to infringe the law in any way. There was nothing illegal on the premises now.
His Worship-I cannot see that there is any necessity to give notice of an inspector's in- tent on to visit a place. This place was illegal and it would be very much better if, instead of coming here and pleading complete ignorance, they had consulted Mr. Danby or an Inspector in the first place. I shall inflict the usual fine —$10.
519
THE OBSTRUCTION OF BAUK- YARDS.
ANOTHER AMending ordiNANCE REQUIRED. At the Magistracy on Saturday, before Hon. Commander Hastings, Choy Chan, as executor of Choy Leong Shai (deceased), was charged · with committing a breach of by-law No. 5, made under section 13 of Ordinance 15 of 1894, in not keeping the backyards of Nos. 26 and 28, Gage Street, clear of obstruction.
Dr. Clark appeared for the Sanitary Board, and Mr. V. H. Deacon appeared for Choy Chan, -* John Readdie, Inspector of Nuisances, spoke to visiting the honses recently and to noticing obtructions in the backyards. The obstruction at 26, Gage Street, was a tile shed and the area of the obstruction was 9 feet 4 inches. The obstruction at 28, Gage Street, extended to 11 feet 4 inches. In cross-examination by Mr. Deacon, he admitted that 3 feet 6 inches as allowed by the Ordinance had to come off at No. 26, which left 5 feet 10 inches, and that 3 feet 6 inches had also to come off the obstruc- tion at No. 28, which left 7 feet 10 inches
obstruction.
Mr. Deacon's defenco was that the houses had been owned by Choy Chan since 26th August, 1886, when he purchased them for $12,000. These so-called obstructions existed at thatdate, and they had never been altered, added to, or amended from that date down to the present. He contended that by-law No. 5 and the Ordinance No. 15 of 1894, under which the by-law was made, not being retrospective in their operations, could not apply to houses which were not altered since the Ordinance and by- laws were passed. Mr. Deacon quoted Devarris on Statutes, Maxell on Statutes, and the Law Times Report, and was proceeding with further authorities when the Magistrate said that he must succeed if he proved that the obstructions were in existence before the Ordinance or the by-laws were passed, and had not been altered.
Mr. Deacon then called evidenre as to the facts.
Mr. R. K. Leigh said he visited the premises recently and had made a plan of them, which was put in evidence. He described the nature of the alleged obstructions.
See To Leong said he had been rent collector to Choy Chan, the defendant, for upwards of twenty years. He had known 26 and 28, Gage Street ever since they were purchased by the defendant in 1886. The alleged obstructions existed when` the property was purchased, and they had never been altered or added to since that time. When the houses were first purchased by Choy Leong Shai they were numbered 24 and 26, but about, two years ago the numbers were altered and they were now 26 and 28.
Mr. R. C. Vania said he was a merchant and had resided in 26, Gage Street, since 1883. He knew the erection over the yard at the back of the house. It was there in 1883, and had re- mained there ever since in the same state with- out alteration.
Mr. Deacon then put in the title deeds of the property, and submitted it was clearly shown that these houses could not come under the operations of the by-law in question, inasmuch as he had proved that the alleged obstructions existed in 1886 when the property was pur-. chased, and had never been altered or added to since that day, and that the Ordinance and by: laws not being retrospective in their operation his Worship must feel himself constrained to dismiss the summons.
Dr. Clark submitted, in reply, that the by. law did have a retrospective operation, and did affect the houses in question.
His Worship said he had made up his mind on this point and dismissed the charge.
The writer of "Notes by the Way" in the Japan Gazette says:--I wonder if any enquiry is to be made into the grievances alleged or real of which the men on the Centurion complain ? The discontent is very keen, and in fairness to both officers and men some sort of investigation ought to be held to discover the truth. It should be said of the Centurion, as is now said of the Edgar, "The ship is a paradise." Why not? She is splendidly equipped, and is in every respect a vessel to be proud of.
2