196
THE HONGKONG, WEEKLY PRESS AND
not long remain unnoticed, and the result is that I wrongfully and illegally entered upon the the captain is now at lieadquarters and there is a whisper of court martial.
More lamentable than the injury the rebels are able to inflict upon the Japanese in these rebellions is the suffering that is brought upon the peaceful Chinese. Often forced to join the rebels against their own will and to engage directly in conflicts with which they have no sympathy, their property may be destroyed, they themselves captured and even their lives taken, and all the while at heart as innocent of any desire to do harm to the Japanese as the most friendly person on the island.. Again, if they refuse to join or at least give aid to the rebels their property is looted, and if they cannot make good their escape death might be dealt them. This is all most unfortunate, for the poor people have every reason to expect protection from the Japanese, and when this is not given they naturally lose confidence in the latter and would be inclined to join the rebels if they thought they were the stronger party; not with the idea of an intended act of hostility against the Japanese, but simply to protect
themselves.
Whether dealing with the rebels rigorously or not is the best policy is a question I will not here discuss; suffice it to say that so far the same district has not rebelled twice. Last
year the rebellion of the Hakkas about Toko. ham, the rebellion of the Kapsulan plain, the rebellion of January 1st, in the north and near the capital, and the Hakka rebellion in the south, all occurred in districts which the Japa- nese had on their first arrival been able to occupy with practically no resistance. The districts later rose in rebellion, the participants had their first taste of real fighting, and some a taste of Japanese lead. It was sufficient, and after peace had been re-established there seemed to be no further desire to rebel.
The Japanese occupied the territory of the present rebels without resistance. consequently the natives were ignorant of the power of the new rulers. They have now opposed them and been defeated. As a result, there will probably be no more rebelling in that part of the island, although we may expect occasional rows and riots. The rebels are still confined to the mountains and will probably for some time fight, knowing, as the poor wretches do, that there is not a pleasant welcome awaiting them
down below.
It may be impossible, but were the Japanese
able to induce the border rebels to surrender. and then transport them across to China, it would not only be an act of mercy, but it would rid the country of a number of bad characters, who are sure to make trouble as long as they are allowed to live along the mountain borders.
JAMES W. Davidson,
SUPREME COURT.
3rd September.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE ME. T. SERCOMBE SMITH (ACTING PUISNE JUDGE) AND A SPECIAL JURY.
-
MAN YIK TONG FIRM v. COOPER AND OTHERS.
Plaintiffs brought an action against Hon. F. A. Cooper, Dr. Atkinson, Dr. Clark, Mr. H. B. Lethbridge. Mr. N. J. Ede, and Inspec- tor Reidie to recover $800 damages.
Mr. J. Hastings (of Mr. V. H. Deacon's office) appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. A B. Johnson (Crown Solicitor) represented the defendants.
The gentlemen constituting the special jury were-Messrs. M. Grote, T. I. Rose, and Paul Jordan.
Mr. Hastings first of all read the pleadings. The plaintiffs are merchants and dealers in Chinese drugs and medicines. and carry on business at 90, Bonham Strand. The first five defendants were, on the 9th May, members of the Sanitary Board, and Inspector Reidio was a sanitary inspector in the employ of the Board. The plaintiffs ocupied the ground and first floors of 90, Bonham Strand and also portion of the top floor, and they owned cocklofts erected therein. On the 9th May the defendants or their servants or agents
а
{
plaintiffs' premises and caused great damage by pulling down the cocklofts and wholly removing the materials. The defendants also caused great damage to valuable goods stored on the premises and caused great inconvenience and loss to the plaintiffs, interfering with and preventing the carrying on of the business. On account of the illegal acts of the defendants the plaintiffs had suffered damage to the extent of $800. In their answer the defendants admitted that their servants illegally removed certain cocklofts from the premises and they paid the sum of $75 into court, that being a uofficient sum to replace the cocklofts in the sondition in which they were when removed by the defendants. The defendants denied that they caused great or any damage to any of the goods stored on the premises, or that they caused any inconvenience or loss whatever to the plaintiffs or interfered with or prevented the carrying on of their business.
Mr. Hastings, in explaining the facts, said there was one cockloft on the ground floor, two on the first floor, and one in the front portion of the second floor. On the afternoon of the 8th May a police constable in the employ of the Sanitary Board gave plantiffs notice that the cocklofts were to be removed by the following morning; if they were not the Board would pull them down themselves. This order was entirely illegal, but the plaintiffs did not know that and they engaged a carpenter to remove the cocklofts, About 8 o'clock on the following morning the carpenter and his coolies went to the shop to remove the cocklofts. About the same time a
Sanitary Board gang, consisting of constables, soldiers, and coolies, arrived at the shop. There would probably be a dispute as to the time operations were commenced. The plantiffs would say that the damage was done between 8 and 9 o'clock, while the defendants alleged that the work was not commenced until 10 o'clock. However, when the gang arrived all the goods had been removed from the cockloft on the ground floor and the front cockloft on the first floor, but the back cockloft was still full of goods. Work was at once commenced by two gangs, one on the ground floor and the other on the first floor. The men appeared to be in a great hurry. probably because they ac other houses to visit, and when plaintiffs asked for time to remove all the goods the meu refused to give it. They demolished the cocklofts as quickly as possible, the consequence being that some of the valuable goods on the back cockloft on the first floor fell to the ground. They were trampled under foot by coolies, mixed with dust and dirt, and so sustained very consider- able damage. After receiving notice to remove the cocklofts the plaintiffs requested Mr. Danby to visit the premises. He went there about 8 o'clock on the morning of the 9th May and was so impressed with what he saw and with the high-handed manner in which the work was being done that he saw Mr. Ede and Mr. McCallum. They visited the premises about 2.30 in the afternoon, but at that time the damage had been done. On the 16th May Mr. V. H. Deacon wrote a letter to the Colonial Secretary on behalf of the plaintiffs stating that the plaintiffs had suffered unnecessary damage to medicinal goods owing to the illegal action of the plague workers, and hoping that his Excellency the Governor would order com. pensation to be paid. On the 12th June the Colonial Secretary replied that his Excellency the Governor had caused inquiries to be made respecting Mr. Danby's letter which had been published in the press and owing to the answers received in response to those inquiries he regretted he could not accede to the request contained in Mr. Deacon's letter. The dam aged goods were afterwards sold by auction and they fotched 50 per cent. under the original cost price. Notice of the sale was given to the Crown Solicitor and the representatives of the Sanitary Board were present at the ralo. Counsel then explained the legal bear ings of the case and concluded by saying that there were three items under the head of damage, viz., damage to the goods, damage to the cocklofts, and damage for trespass and in-
terference with business.
Evidence was then called. Mr. Danby said he visited the premises at 8.30 on the morning of the 9th May. The coolies appeared to be
September 10, 1896
working against time much for the job. Everything of confusion and the coolies were shouting.
4th September.
state
Evidence for the defence was called, after which Mr. Johnson briefly addressed the jury. for the defendants. He referred to the amount. of damage claimed by the plaintiffs under the different heads and said for the trespass they were only entitled to nominal damages in the sum of about fifty cents or 81. In making the honse to house visitation the defendants did what they thought was necessary He sub mitted that it was justifiable, and he thought he had succeeded in proving that no damage whatever had been sustained under that head. Mr. Johnson then referred to the damage to the goods and said the jury must be satisfied that there was actual damages before they awarded any sum. Even if there had been any d damage, however, he contended that it would be met by the sum paid into Court.
Mr. Hastings then addressed the jury for the plaintiff and said the only question they had to decide was the amount of damages. The defendants had admitted their liability and it was for the jury to say if the $75 paid into Court was a just compensation for the injury and annoyance that had been sustained by the plaintiffs. Mr. Hastings then reviewed the evidence and in conclusion submitted that it Was an act of negligence for the Sanitary Board to allow such a technical matter as the pulling down of cocklofts to be decided by their inspectors.
His Lordship, in briefly summing up, ex- plained to the jury the legal definition of tres- pass and then went on to review the evidence. He particularly referred to one witness called
for the defendants who was in the house on the
day in question and who produced a book, the credibility of which had not been disputed in Court, containing bona fide notes taken at the time, which showed that no “back!”: cock- loft existed on the first floor. That was very strong evidence and the jury should give it due consideration. The plaintiffs con- tended that there was a cockloft there and that there were signs of its having been removed. There might have been signs of a cockloft, but it was possible they were the traces of an old cockloft that had existed previously. He did not think that any of the witnesses for the plaintiffs spoke directly as to there being a
back" cockloft. Proceeding, his Lordship asked the jury if they thought it likely that the officers of the Sanitary Board would pro ceed in a ruthless manner to pull down cock. lofts when they found goods upon them. Re- ferring to the question of impartial evidence, his Lordship said the officers of the Sanitary Board who had given evidence did not appear to have any greater interest in the issue of the trial than the gentlemen who had been called by the plaintiffs. Take the case of Mr. Danby, who had been called as an independent witness. Did the jury believe that Mr. Danby down there at 8.30 in the morning and it was was getting no fees out of this? He went only, natural that he would get something out of his clients. His Lordship concluded by ex- plaining to the jury that they could assess damages in a lump sum or award under the separate heads.
*
The jury then retired and after an absence of only ten minutes they returned with unanimous verdict in favour of the plaintiffs, assessing damages in a lump sum 'at $434.05 Mr. Johnson asked that the jury should assess the damages under separate heads, which they did as follows-Damage to goods, '$263.05 damage to cooklofts, $70; trespass, ference with business, $100.
inter
Never in the history of Shanghai has any new company met with such solid support by tors as the Shanghai Engineering,” Shipbuildin and Dook Co Limited, the shares in which were allotted on 27th Aug. Even the 2,000 shares which were to be kept for London have. be given to Shanghai, and at that not nearly enough to go round among local applicants, who only got a propo part of the number they applied for. Gazette,
ere were
China