March 11, 18971
ion of a person, not a Japanese, who subsequently withdrew what he had told me. It is inevitable that conjectures should be indulged in as to the nature of the duplicity and deceit referred to, the identity of the person not a Japanese who withdrew what he had told Mr. LOWDER, the nature of the statements
ithdrawn, and the motive for making them. It is not likely that public curiosity will be gratified on these points, but the inference may fairly be drawn that the discovery of the unimaginable, and incon- ceivable duplicity and deceit mentioned by Mr. LOWDER has satisfied that gentleman, if he still entertained any doubt, as to the justice of the verdict recorded against Mrs. CAREW, for it must have been in the interests of that person that the duplicity and deceit were practised, and the motive must have been to screen her at the expense of another, a line of conduct incompatible with innocence. Mr. MONTAGUE WILLIAMS in his interest- ing reminiscences records a case in which he secured the acquittal of a particularly cold blooded murderer against whom the evidence was circumstantial, and who, after the verdict of not guilty was returned, went through the town boasting "this is the "hand that did it." Juries as a rule, and the public from which juries are drawn, have a strong prejudice against circum- stantial evidence, and it is only when such evidence is absolutely irresistible in its force that a conviction can be obtained upon it. In the CAREW case there could be no moral doubt of the guilt of the deceased man's wife, but it is possible the jury might have deemed the original evidence technically inconclusive had it not been added to by the incriminatory conduct of the accused after suspicion rested upon her, conduct which closed every loophole and rendered a verdict of guilty inevitable. The attempt to throw suspicion on an innocent woman, an attempt that actually succeeded in deceiving Mr. LOWDER, Was in itself a crime only a few degrees less odious than the murder that formed the subject of the trial.
SUPREME COURT.
4th March.
IN BANKRUPTCY.
BEFORE SIR JOHn Carrington (CHIEF JUSTICE.)
A BOLICITOR'S CLERK AND INDIAN MONKY | LENDERS.
The debtor, Constantino Jose Lopez, clerk, appeared for his public examination. His liabi- lities on his own account amount to $1,622.14, and the liabilities on joint and several promis- sory notes amount to $2,216; total $3,838.14. The assets were nil.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
were drawn for the money and when you were in trouble you borrowed money at the rate of sometimes 150 per cent. interest f
The debtor-Yes.
for $180, and $150 for a note of $70, and so on? You received 880 and gave a promissory note Yes.
And you found that the more you paid the more you owed to the money lenders ? Yes.
And when they pressed you you borrowed from other people to pay them off -Yes.
His Lordship-Who were these money
lenders ?
Asiatic Artillery. Some of them are here.
The debtor-Sikhs; soldiers belonging to the
•
His Lordship-It is very scandalous that these soldiers should be lending money in this way and I wonder that the commanding officer allows it. They are professional money len- ders and I do not think it is creditable to the dignity of the force that they should do it. lende.s got very handsome interest and he The Official Receiver said some of the money thought there ought to be some means for ad- justing the amounts to be paid to the creditors. His Lordship-It is a shameful thing that a man who follows the profession of a soldier should be a money lender. I will address the commanding officer on the matter and say what a discreditable thing the system is.
The Official Receiver (to the debtor)-Every succeeding year you became more debted ?
deeply in-
|
The debtor-Yes.
In May last year you joined one Remedios in getting money on security ?—Yes.
That was when your means for borrowing money were exhausted P-Yes,
Remedios also wanted money ?—Yes.
So
you propped up each other by backing up each other's security P-Quite so, exactly.
I see that on joint security you borrowed $2,216, of which I suppose you had half and Remedios half ?We had about $1,200. The amount actually received was $600 or $700, -
You mean to say that you and Remedios gave promissory notes for $2,216 and only re- $1,2.0 or $1,500 between us. ceived $600 or $700 P-We received about
I see the exact amount received was $1,340 on
promissory notes amounting to $2,216. Where
is Remedios now ?-He went to Macao.
He has left the colony ?—Yes.
And has left you to pay these debts ?—I think so.
the creditors ?--I was sued by two creditors
It was then that you were sued by some of one for $240 and the other for $270,
Your borrowing resources were then ex- hausted ?—Yes, I could not borrow any more.
And that is why you seek the protection of the Court P-Yes,
His Lordship You were sued in January?— Yes.
The Official Receiver In February, 1895, you borrowed some money (from Mr. Osmund ? Yes, I borrowed some money expressly on gocount of these Indians coming. to me.
How much ?-$854.
i
What did you do with that money ?--I ap. plied it to the paying off of Indian creditors.
Is it true that with any of that 'money you speculated in any shares in public companies? I have never speculated in company shares at all.
Did you gamble in any way with your money? -I have never gambled in my life.
Is not the differer received and the the interest P
177
unt
28180
for $60 I should get perhaps $30 and have get $100, the payment being at ence being interest.
I have sign
the rate of $15 per instalment per mon
That includes capital and most of the notes are payable on
You transacted some through a broker? Yes.
Yes
your business
You borrowed $290 and $90 from Sab Singh: $150. how did you receive that money I was paid
and 890 P-The note for $90 was to secure the You received $150 and signed notes for $290 interest on $290 for six months.
Why did you sign a bill like that? Because he forced me to sign it.
You were not compelled to sign it?—He would not have lent me the money.
been sent to prison P-I thought I would man- And if you had not done it you would have
age like that.
But you could not go on like that for ever? --Certainly not.
Why did you do it?-To pay off previons debts.
And you were getting deeper into debt P Yes, I got deeper into debt.
Did it not occur to yon that you were sign- ing a deceptive security ?-The broker asked me to sign for $90 to secure the other note for $290.
I
But you only received $150 ?—Yes. received $290 when you had not received it. You signed a paper stating that you had Is'nt that a deceptive security P-Of course it is. He asked me to sign the $90 to secure the 3290.
His Lordship-Both notes were given at the same time Yes,
For $380 altogether P-Yes.
The Official Receiver-Would not that have not now ? Remedios is not here now ?—No. been a proper time to come to the Court and
If Remedidos had not gone away, do you think you could have gone on ?-I could pay my own debts, but I could not pay Remedios's.
The date of the promissory note was 8th August, 1896 P-Yes.
And the interest you paid was considerably times 150, or 90, or 80 per cent. greater than the amount you borrowed P-Some-
instalments reduced the principal somewhat.
Yet you never reduced the principal These promissory notes which have been paid by
Here is a promissory note yon gave to a money lender. When did you borrow that money I think that was in 1892.
You borrowed $110 on the 3rd November, 1892, and paid $5 a month up to the 5th November, 1895, and you still owe $110P- Yes, the principal is untouched.
You have paid $180 for interest on $110 bor- rowed Yes.
That is not so bad as some cases. That is 60 per cent. per annum, and it is the case with many others?-Many are paid off.
You paid them off by borrowing more money and not.by instalments. To one man you paid 96 per cent. per annum. $60 is written on the paper and you got only $30, paying 84 a month. That is exactly 96 per cent. per annum ? --- Yes.
Didn't you know that P-Well, I could easily pay $4 a month,
And you have used. the whole of that money. But if you could easily pay that you could in paying off the debts of Indian creditors P reduce the principal?-No, I had so many Yes.
amounts to pay that I could not reduce the principal.
A
Look at this promissory note: "On demand I promise to pay $60 only, value received." There is nothing there about interest P-No, nothing at all about interest.
mission.
·
The debtor, who was examined by Mr. Bruce Shepherd (Official Receiver), said I am 48 years of age and am a clerk in Mr. V. H. Dea con's office. I have a wife and two children. I have been in Mr. Deacon's employ since 1875. salary is $110 a month. That has been my salary since March last year. In 1890 I had $90 a month, in 1891 $95, and from 1891 to What did the lender, Cabar Singh, pay
had $100. I have not been in the bank-you ?—He gave me $30 and took off $2 com court before. I first found myself in 888 or 1890, when I had to borrow enders, My wife and I were the comotery of a money loan association, 1888, and my monetary d through five or six mem- money from the associa from the colony, and I was the losses.
iver. In this association the contributed so much money and lots
ties were
That is, he gave you $28 P-$28 exactly, and I paid $3 interest per month. If I settled in reasonable time he said he would let me off with $33 instead of $60.
His Lordship What is Singh ?—He is a retired soldier.
عد یاد شده یه
Had he retired at that time ?—Yes.
The Official Receiver Were all the promis sory notes in that form-without mentioning the interest P-Yes. * 4*
7
His Lordship-Tliey did not press you for reduction of the principal, but kept the interest going.
The debtor's arswer to this question was not audible to our reporter.
The Official1eceiver
Your salary you have to live on and your debts? That is so,
fall!
pay
Your son, I believe, had some employment P Yes, he is employed at Meyerink and Co. His Lordship How much does he get P 940 a month.
The Official Receiver With his ass do you think you could live on $60 a mo I think
Are you sure you can? Yes
tano