THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
In
Lees
quity ought
view
Such
Justi tions
point defendant that in
as to
must in my
against the rous, clearly
ment come to was not
the law because the pr
of a public trustee, and no hos to recover it were necessary
In the present case the sum alleged by the defendant as commission had been claimed from private persons who had refused to recognize the claim, and the agreement made between the parties olearly contemplated the probability of legal proceedings being taken to enforce the claim.
discourage 'opinion, in 8 08se of this kind adopted by | agreement is not the less contrary the De Bernardy, [1896] 2 policy of the law because the property is in th "It is not necessary in hands of trustees or in Court and no hostile in order that the agreement action may be necessary to recover it, though, held võid, that it should amount perhaps, the criminal offence of champerty may oint of law to champerty or mainten- not have been. committed. And he refers to to constitute a punishable offence." the cases of Strange v. Brennan, 15 Sim. 346 think, be apparent that, if I have and Sprye v. Porter, supra, as supporting this set forth the effect of the agreement view. between the parties in this case, that ment falls within the above-stated rules of and is void as being in the nature of cham. This conclusion is strengthened by an ation of the cases cited by Mr. Robinson in course of his argument for the defendant, 8 Stanly v. Jones, 5 M. & P. 193, Sprye
7 E&B. 58, and Hutley v. Hutley, It was said also that the present case is dis LR8QB. 112, which go to support this view. tinguishable from the case of Rees v. De Ber- But the case on which the defence most, relied, nardy because in that case the defendant went and in my opinion properly relied, is the very to the women with whom he made the agres recent one of Rees v. De Barnardy, [1896] ment, while in this case the defendant of his 2 Ch 437 In that case the facta were as fol- own accord went to the plaintiffs and invited low William Howells died intestate, having their co-operation. But it appears to me that considerable real estate and leaving Mrs. the question for determination is not how the Walters and Mrs. York his co-heiresses-at-contract came to be made but what was its law De Bernardy, who was a next of kin effect when it was made.
ent, having ascertained the heirship of Mrs. alters and Mrs. York induced them to sign eement whereby, in consideration of his caling to them the existence of the property title to it (of both of which circum- they were wholly unaware) they agreed him one half of the net amount of the ty that is to say, one-half after deducting e costs of recovering it, it being stipulated that such costs should not, in their case, exceed 240. This agreement; it was said in argument Counsel for the plaintiffs in the case, was akilfully drawn by De Bernardy in the terms of the first count in Sprys v. Porter, supra, The judge, however, found, on the evidence him, that the agreement did not set the whole of the arrangement between Bernardy and Mrs. Walters and Mrs. York, that he had at the same time verbally ged to recover the property for them, and induced them to employ his solicitor to
on
Nor do I think it makes any difference that in this case under consideration, De Bernardy was to recover the property claimed by his own un- aided efforts, while in the present instance the plaintiffs were to co-operate with the defendant in recovering the amount claimed.
did no probabilities
ro
he mi admitted tha in the box-
there was no
was the possible
into the room
there was no exp
and feared that he
lenc
pared to
offence and so put mopped up all the traces of blood in smuggle the body out of the colony. had been in the history of crime many in which men of position, men of i men of education, had, on finding their presence, lost control of so acted in a manner which them. If such things ha among intelligent.com reasonably and fairly be man, ignorant, supers with the English law or tration, filled with the
ough
in his own house with a dead body any serious difficulty in imagining On a consideration of the doctrines of law man might have awakened and fou and of the cases to which I have referred, I wife lying at his side and had arrive at the conclusion that the agreement on that he put her body in the which the plaintiffs sue is void as amounting to doing what he ought to have don champerty, and the suit therefore fails. The result rushed down and called the police? There is that judgment must be entered for the defen- nothing to show that the woman was not mur- dant, with costs of suit. Against these costs, dered by some other person wh however, must be set off the plaintiffs' costs on the partition or had entered by the door the de bene esse examination of Yeong Chiu-ngam.ry liad to remember that, 8000 The defendant must bear his own costs of that witness, the deceased woman was ono examination. I have already on a previous a man other than the Boner occasion indicated the reasons for this qualifica been chucked before the jury tion of the general order as to costs.
24th March.
IN ÜRIMINAL SESSIONS.
BEFORE. SIR JOHN Carrington (ChIEF JUSTICE,)
THE ALLEGED. MURDER IN A BOARDING . HOUSE.
The trial was resumed of Chui Kwai on a charge of murdering his wife in the Ki Shang boarding house, 48, Praya Central, on the 14th March.
them in the matter. The property was the hands of the public trustee in New Zealand, and the title of Mrs. Walters and Mrs. York, was clear, and no litigation was contemplated. A portion of the proceeds of the property was received and divided
the
terms of the agreement. On the death of Mrs. Walker and Mrs. York, that
executors brought an action against De Bernardy to have the agreement set aside and cancelled. The plaintiffs impeached the on several grounds, the principal being that it was against the policy of the law and amounted to maintenance and champerty. Mr. Justice Romer upheld the plaintiffs' con- tention and ordered that the documents em- bodying the agreement should be cancelled and delivered up to them. It is true that he also held that the transaction could not stand on the grounds on which it was attacked by the plaintiffis, Inasmuch as the decision in favour the plaintiffs was in the first place rested on these other grounds, it was suggested
rancis, in his argument for the plain- This concluded the whole case and Mr. Fran hat it was unnecessary for the learned cis said that the prisoner desired to make
decide the question as to the statement, but his Lordship ruled, on the auth
the transaction of the docrity of a recent case in England, that
cliamperty, and that there? soner could not make a statement after having
on that point could not authoritative. But I am the force of this contention. carned judge, having of the other grounds,
un
опе
5.
At the conclusion of the case for the prosecu- tion Mr. Francis called a witness for the de- fence. This witness was a sorceress living at Yaumati and she stated that the deceased woman visited her one day and witness predicted that the woman would commit suicide within three days. Witness did not tell the police in order to prevent the suicide. The God of For tune had rovealed the woman's destiny in re sponse to witness's pravers. →→→
called a witness.
豬豬
had climbed over
ith wh to counsel most indecent haste and adequate inquiry on the art of of the police. There was not a tittl to show that this far famed police of amined the room for bloodstains on tion or on the floor &o. There was rubbish tossed in court; ha identified and there was no fio evidence to show that of blood. Counsel had never of a case which had been so lessly thrown before this or an tegard to the deposit ree rhat the fact that they prisoner's possession did not guilty of her death, as that he was given the notes to put with the other family money, as woman received the notes, No that because the in stained therefore, he might easily have stain lifting the body from Counsel suggested that
suicide and that the affected the were called tha
Cantonese
Mr. Francis, in addressing the jury for the in par defence, said the positive facts for them to deal with were that this woman was found inza-box and that her throat was out. It was possible on the medical evidence that
of was killed by the pri
his
kil
перпе
tewas