July 2, 1896.]
of the office of Clerk in the Supreme Court of Jamaica to the writer's son.
His Lordship-They used to he called patent officers in the West Indies. They never lived in the colony; they always lived in England, and the work was done by a deputy, and of course the deputy got very little of the salary, (Laughter.)
Counsel made further comments on the case And
His Lordship said-Do you wish to argue that the dignity of the office makes any
difference ?
Mr. Robinson submitted that such was the opinion of the Court in that particular case. The office of Sanitary Board Inspector was not known to the common law, whereas the office of Privy Councillor or the office of Treasurer to the King would be common to the Constitu- tion.
His Lordship called the attention of counsel to the following definition of bribery by Russell, -"Bribery is receiving or offering any undue reward by or to any person whatsoever whose ordinary profession or business relates to the administration of public justice." Did counsel take that to mean justice in the ordinary sense or the administration of public affairs ?
|
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
Law
80
rightly, Stephens's "Digest of the Criminal was intended to be an exposition of the actual criminal law of the land and he would be very reluctant indeed to believe that eminent a criminal lawyer as Sir James Stephen would lay down a proposition which was unsupported by authorities. The whole object of the law was to prevent any officer, who held a public trust, being bribed in the performance of his public duties. In this oase the Inspector was in the performance of his public duties, and the case certainly came within the criminal law with regard to bribery. The demurrer would therefore be over-ruled and the defendant must plead.
Defendant therefore pleaded not guilty and the following jurors were sworn in: Messrs. J. Lowrie, C. J. Gonsalves, A. J. da C. Rocha, J. M. da Rocha, G. Grimble, L. C. do Rozario, and M. A. A. Souza.
On the information being read over to the jury Mr. Robinson raised another objection. The words "refrain from interfering with her," | which occurred in the information, did not state an offence at alland might mean something There was a quite different from bribery. duplicity in the information, as it stated "refrain from interfering with her or informing," &c.
His Lordship consented to the information being amended by the words first mentioned being struck out.
Mr. Robinson took it to mean justice in the ordinary sense-something relating to the Court. His Lordship-Why "public justice," then? Mr. Robinson-Because it might be a private The Acting Attorney-General, in explain. Memorial Court. There are such courts stilling the facts said the complainant was in charge existing.
of No. 10 district at British Kowloon and the defendant was the mistress of a brothel. About 3.30 in the afternoon of the 30th May the defendant went to the complainant's house and saw a Chinese woman, the complainant's house- keeper. The complainant was not in at the time and the defendant stopped on the premises until 4.10, when the complainant returned home. Defendant then put three $5 notes into his hand, saying something to this effect, "Inspector, don't you pull down my room. I give you these to buy wine and drink." Complainant at once sent for a constable and gave the defendant into custody.
Counsel then referred to Roscoe's "Digest of the Law on Evidence," 11th Edition, 1890, page 323, and contended that a Sanitary Board In spector did not come within the purview of the Court, and in order that such an officer might bring a charge of bribery he must come within the purview of the law and that must be by some statutory enactment similar to one recently passed in England. Although it was highly advisable that the Hongkong law should be amended by practical extension of the English enactment, counsel submitted that in the present state of the law in the colony the offer of a bribe to an officer of the Sanitary
Board was not a common law offence.
The Acting Attorney-General submitted that the information disclosed an offence against the defendant which was cognisable by law. In Stephens's Digest of Criminal Law, 4th Edition, page 89, Article 127, was the following pas- sage:-"Everyone commits a misdemeanour who by any means endeavours to force, per suade, or induce any public officer, not being a judicial officer, to do or omit to do any act which the offender knows to be a violation of such officer's official duty." The Inspectors of
Nuisances were appointed by the Governor
under section 9 of Ordinance 24 of 1887, and the Crown contended that the defendant offered a bribe to the Inspector to prevent him inform- ing the Sanitary Board of an offence against Ordinance 15 of 1894, by-law 7, and counsel submitted that under the circumstances the de- fendant could be indicted for misdemeanour at common law.
His Lordship said the Acting Attorney- General need not proceed further.
Mr. Robinson again addressed the Court in reply.
His Lordship, in over-ruling the demurrer, said it was the duty of the Inspector to report to the Sanitary Board a statutory Board-any offences committed against the law relating to insanitary dwellings. If it had been necessary his Lordship would have held that such an officer was an officer connected with the ad- ministration of public justice within the scope of the definition given, especially in Russell on Crimes, because it appeared to him that the Inspector had duties connected with the admin- istration of the law, under the Closed and In- sanitary Dwellings Ordinance, in respect of the commission of the offence stated therein. Even if he had had any doubt on that point he should still hold that the Inspector was such an officer as was intended in the case of the King v. Vaughan reported in Burrows, and within the authority contained in the statement of law in Stephens's "Digest of Criminal Law," which was read by the Attorney-General. The learned counsel for the defence had said that Stephens's statement of the lay was unsupported by authorities. If his Lordship remembered
gents had been left at his house.
Inspector Rennie, in his evidence, said pre-
His Lordship-Why didn't you proceed against those people as well as against this defendant ?
Witness-The presents were eatables. The Chinese constable gave evidence and the case for the prosecution closed.
Mr. Robinson for the defence admitted that
the money had been paid by the defendant, but
contended that she had committed no offence mentioned in the indictment.
The jury retired and returned in a few minutes, when the foreman made the following
announcement:-"We find that the prisoner gave money to the Inspector of nuisances, but in accordance with the charges contained in the indictment we find that she is not guilty.”
The prisoner was therefore discharged.
25th June.
IN BANKRUPTCY.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR DR. CARRINGTON (CHIEF JUSTICE).
RE ON WO, EX PARTE WING ON. The petitioning creditor applied for the with- drawal of the petition.
Mr. Grist-I appear for the petitioning cre- ditor, my Lord. The petition has stood over, with your Lordship's permission, for a fortnight or three weeks with a view to the matter being settled out of Court, but there is one creditor who stands out and will not come into the settle- ment; therefore we have been unable to settle the matter and my client now wishes to with draw the petition, as he is unable to appear. He is away in Canton, and as the debt is a small one he does not want to have anything more to do with the matter:
His Lordship-You say the debt is a small
one.
Mr. Grist-$1,000, my Lord. His Lordship-$1,140.
Mr. Grist-Comparatively speaking, it is a small one. He is a man in a large way of business and cannot afford the time to come down. He hoped the matter would have been
The
settled. Section 7, sub-section 6, says: creditor's petition shall not after presentment be withdrawn without the leave of the Court," and it is for that leave that I now apply.
Mr. Ewens-I appear for a creditor, and up to yesterday I was unaware that Mr. Grist was going to make this application. He had previously told me he was going to proceed with the petition, otherwise I should have filed & petition. My client is away now and I ask your Lordship to make an order on the petition filed. I submit your Lordship has power to make the receiving order, and it is for the benefit of the creditors generally that the order should be made, as one or more writs of foreign attachment have been issued and judgment obtained upon them, and were this petition allowed to be withdrawn the judgment creditors would take the whole of the assets in Court and apply them to the payment of their own debts to the exclusion of my client, who would therefore be unjustly deprived of the benefit of the Bankruptcy Act.
In reply to questions by his Lordship, Mr. Ewens said that both Sir Fielding Clarke and Mr. Goodman had refused similar applications unless good ground was shown.
His Lordship-I think I had better look into the matter and I will let you know next Thursday.
RE KWAN IN TING, EX PARTE LAN TAI. Mr. Seth (Official Receiver) said he had made every endeavour to collect the book debts of the debtor, but, with one or two exceptions, there was no immediate hope of recovering them.
Į
Mr. Ewens, who appeared for a petitioning creditor, said under those circumstances it would be absolutely useless to grant a receiving order and he asked his Lordship to fix a day for the debtor to attend to be examined. He at first made an offer of 40 per cent, and. when the petition was filed he offered 20 per cent.
His Lordship pointed out that the Official Receiver was satisfied that the debtor had no property either in or out of the colony and therefore there was no need to examine him. His discharged the order for the appointment of an interim receiver and dismissed the peti- tion.
RE FRANK WAPSHARE WATTS.- The debtor appeared for his public examina- tion. Mr. Grist appeared for the debtor.
•
Mr. Seth (Official Receiver)-In this case; 11th May last and the debtor filed his statement my Lord, a receiving order was made on the
of affairs. A first meeting of creditors was held, at which the debtor proposed a scheme of arrangement, suggesting the appointment of Mr. Hastings as trustee with a committee of inspection of three gentlemen. Now the debtor comes up for his public examination. Before that scheme can be affirmed it is necessary that the public examination of the debtor shall be held.. The debtor's statement shows assets $6,454.17 and liabilities $5,643, so that according to that statement he is quite solvent; but of course how much of the assets can be realised the debtor is not in a position to know at present.
The debtor was then called and examined by the Official Receiver. He said-I commenced business in 1893 as a commission agent and manufacturers' agent with a capital of between $5,000 and $6,000. The firm was styled Watts and Co., and I have been the sole partner throughout. I had had previous experience of that kind. I came to the colony in 1888 and I obtained the experience as manager for Dakin Brothers of China, Limited. My business in.. creased up to 1895. At the beginning of this year I was under the impression that business would suffer in consequence of the bubonic plague and in April I went to Wuchow in company with another gentleman to start a business. During my absence three writs of foreign attachment were issued against my property here. My departure had been published in the newspapers and in consequence of the writs being issued I returned, having been away fourteen days. To these writs I at- tribute my filing my petition, as I wanted to protect the general body of creditors. I think I shall be able to pay my creditors at least 75 per cent. if the estate is carefully realised; and I think the proposed scheme of arrangement is the best way of doing that. I was advised that