Page
156
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
the Sanitary Board would do it themselves. The plaintiffs had also been warned two hours earlier. Witness considered that the time allowed was sufficient. The Sanitary Board coolies did not wash the verandah; they simply | carried away wood.
By Mr. Hastings-Witness crdered the removal of the cocklofts because they were dirty and because those on the ground and first floor were illegal.
The case was not concluded when the Court
rose.
22nd Angust.
After further evidence had been called Mr. Johnson addressed the jury for the defence, and speaking on the question of damages denied that the Sanitary Board coolies washed the plaintiffs' verandah.
Mr. Hastings then addressed the jury on behalf of the plaintiffs and said the defend- ants by their pleadings admitted their liability in taking down the cocklofts, and having paid a sum of money into Court the question before the jury was that of the amount of damages to be awarded for the illegal and unlawful acts done by the defendants. With regard to the damage to the goods he contended that it was actually done by the defendants or their servants. Did the jury think, as the defendants would have them believe, that it was
a tramped up case brought for the purpose of "squeezing money out of the Government? He submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs that they were a respectable body of merchants, and the jury would further notice-a circumstance which they would not find in the defendant's. case that independent evidence had been brought corroborating their statements. There was a very material difference between the nature of the evidence of the plaintiffs and the evidence called on the other side; if the damage was done it was done by the defendants' men. Mr. Hastings then referred to the damage done to the goods and the interruption caused to the plaintiffs' business. Great annoyance and incon- venience had been caused by the removal of half the storage capacity of the shop. It was im- possible to put the damage into figures and he would leave the jury to estimate, as business men, what was a fair sum to graut,
was
an
His Lordship, in addressing the jury, said they were doubtless very glad to have come to the conclusion of this important case. This action brought to recover from the Sanitary Board damages to the ex- tent of $1,000 for trespass. Trespass was constituted by any wrongful interference with a person's possession of land or property. If a man went to a house by lawful authority and whilst he was in that house did no harm he did not become a trespasser, but if having gone into the house under lawful authority he com- mitted a misfeasance he became a trespasser from the very beginning. The defendants in this case had a right to order certain parties to enter No. 88, Bonham Strand, and it was alleged that while there these parties abused the right and became trespassers. Coming to the evidence, he said the jury must distinguish between this and criminal cases. In a criminal case the evidence must be such as to leave no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the prisoner, but in civil cases the jury must be guided by the balance of evidence, and if the balance appeared to be in favour of either side that side was entitled to the verdict. Damages must follow directly and naturally from the illegal aots of the defendants in removing these cock- lofts; but the evidence as to the cocklofts, shelves, etc., removed was contradictory, the defendants denying that they removed one cookloft on the first floor of No 88, Bog- ham Strand and also a cockloft and ceiling on the top floor of No 90, Bonham Strand, Mr. Danby said that when he got to the top floor of No. 90 early in the morning he found that one cockloft and ceiling were there, but when he got there in the afternoon he saw they had been removed. The evidence on the other side was distinctly to the effect that these things were never removed by the instructions of the Sanitary Board. The jury would have to say, on weighing all the circumstances, which side ras in the right. In regard to the damage to goods his Lordship said that the damage
*
August 27-18
land
OL
00:
must be directly, necessarily, and naturally | ing- damage by trespass caused by the illegal acts of the defen- wherever a trespass, dants. Some of the ginseng had been damage was done at all, the thrown into the road and damaged by water or goods have been trespassed upon was entitled dripping on it One side said the coolies of the to damages of some kind or other Sanitary Board caused this damage and the entitled to nominal, ordinary, other alleged that it was the plaintiffs' own or vindictive damages. After quoti coolies. If the jury were satisfied this dripping authorities on the law of trespass of water was the result of the acts of the plain-ship said the jury were quite tiffs' servants of course the plaintiffs would be to take into consideration the w entitled to no damages on that account, but if the circumstances connected with this entry the jury thought the coolies of the Sanitary whether the entry was malicious, whether it Board caused the damage through their was outrageous, whether it was vindictive, acte and negligence then the plaintiffs would whether it was oppressive, all these things they be entitled to some compensation. It was ad- could take into their consideration when us- mitted by the plaintiffs that some of their coolies sessing the amount of damages which they had been working there early in the morning would allow for the actual trespass, If they washing down the place, but the work was not found that this trespass was bona fide, that thể being done quickly enough to satisfy the Sani-work was not negligently done, that there was tary Board people, who took the job in hand them. no malice in the matter, that the parties were selves. Mr. Danby, in his evidence, said that more or less in one sense, though not legall he arrived there at 8.30, and found the coolies justified in what they did; if they though washing the place, but he also stated that he the notice the plaintiffs received was ad- saw a man in khaki. His Lordship left it equate and in considering that question to the jury to infer whether this man be- they must bear in mind that notice was given longed to the Sanitary Board or not. On between two and three o'clock on the previous the other side it was denied that their coolies afternoon, that the whole of the operations were were there at all at that time, and there was conducted by a much larger staff than could be also the statement of the defendants' witnesses got by the plaintiffs, and concluded in two or that no coolies were there before 'ten o'clock in three hours next day-if they considered that › the morning. It was for the jury to re- plaintiffs must have been aware by the presence concile these two statements and say which of of gangs working round them that their houses them was to be believed. With regard to the were to be visited, and they ought to have pre-
for the tin of ginseng, it was alleged that it was knocked pared,
visit (and they bad also to bear in mind down by Police Constable 103, who took a crow-
that the bar and proceeded to break down some shelves, cupier of the premises adjoining No. causing the tin to fall down and the contents to 55 came along and found out what he would be damaged. P.C. Gourlay, however, while admit- have to do when his turn came)-if they con- ting that he went there to remove a shelf with a sidered that no unnecessary force was used, crowbar, denied that he knocked down any tin, that the parties were not unduly annoyed, they. while the Acting Corporal denied distinctly that would simply give nominal damages for the Gourlay used a crowbar at all. There was trespass. If they thought it was necessary, on also a great discrepancy as to the time account of the behaviour of the Sanitary Board, P.C. Gourlay was
there, and the jury to make an example by making the defendants would have to say which side they believed; pay what was sometimes known as Smart they would probably come to the conclusion money," then the damages were practically in that the European witnesses were more to be their own hands; but the whole amount must not relied upon than the Chinese in the shop. As exceed $1,000, as that was the limit of the to the goods in the cockloft it was for the jury damages that could be awarded in the Sum-- to say how those goods were stored and mary Jurisdiction Court. whether the action of the Sanitary Board in palling down the cockloft in any way dislodged those goods and caused them to be damaged. He had to put this question to the jury--Was it likely that Gourlay went behind
shelves and
Mr. Inchbald said-We find unanimously for top shelf without looking to see whether there the plaintiffs, and by a majority assess the any goods left? One of the plaintiffs' wit-damages in a lump sum of $500. nesses said that he pointed out these goods and the
said, "It does not matter," while another witness said they could not get the permission of the Sanitary Board to remove the goods from the shelves. It was a fair question for the jury to consider whether the Sanitary Board would have proceeded to take down the shelves or cocklofts while the goods were there. In regard to the damage to the cocklofts and ginseng the jury must give what damages they thought would compensate the plaintiffs for in- juries received in that respect. As to the value of the cocklofts his Lordship pointed out that a Chinese carpenter estimated the value of the whole lot at $143, whereas Mr. Crook's estimate (excluding the big cockloft on the second floor, which was valued by Mr. Turner at about $20, and some other minor details, bringing the whole amount up to $96) amounted to $71.73. It was for the jury to decide which of these two estimates was likely to be the correct one. He then referred the jury to the evidence of Mr. Jorge (of Messrs Shewan, Tomes and Co.), an expert in that branch of the business, whose estimate of the damage to the ginseng was practically the same as that given in the particulars of claim. The jury had also to consider whether the amount of $300 claimed by the plaintiffs for loss of business in consequence of the action of the Sanitary Board, was a reasonable amount. No doubt the plaintiffs were put to some incon- a short time the par venience, but it was for the jury to say to what nothing happened extent they suffered inconvenience by reason of outing until the their own dilitoriness in not carrying out the pellets from instructions of the Sanitary Board themselves. the man The most difficult part of the case, the only but only part which involved any law, was that respect- |* nd
detales
these
man
knocked
off the
Mr. Dodwell-Is it necessary to give separate headings for the damages, or a lump sum
His Lorship-I think a lump sum will do. ⠀⠀ The jury then retired, and on returning after * an absence of 35 minutes,
Mr. Hastings Will your Lordship give judg...** ment for the plaintiffs for $500 and costs of 2 action P
His Lordship-I give judgment for $500- and costs. I am much obliged to you, gentle “ men, for the care which you have given to this case.. I think I am justified in saying that * you will not be called upon as special juro in the Summary Jurisdiction for the next months.
OUTRAGE ON A HONGKONG SHOOTING PARTY.
HARD-FIGHTING AGAINST ODDS,
A party of Hongkong gentlemen had a most unpleasant quarter of an hour's experience on Sunday afternoon. They were, without - pro- vocation, attacked in a most shameful manner near Deep Bay by a large body of Chinese villagers, and it is to be hoped that the matter will be speedily reported to the Chinese in order that due punishment may be aw the offenders and outrages of this which unfortunately are not uncomm effectually put an end to. Six gentlemen started on Saturday, Deep Bay for snipe shooting went on shore on Sunday, m sampan and they engaged the day, one to carry the t the other two
carry
aligb
mer
{