66
paid into court. The agreement spoken of arose in this way. There is in the colony a man named Bornemann, who deals in cigarette papers, which he made up in little coloured wrappers and sold in boxes. Mr. Grossmann represented & European firm and he complained that the wrapper in which these things were made up was an infringement of the trade mark he was using. Mr Bornemann denied that and also denied thut Mr. Grossmann had any right whatever to say anything at all because he was not registered in Hongkong as the owner of the trade marks which he claimed, in addition. Mr. Bornemann said the trade marks which he was using were not infringements of the trade marks spoken of by Mr. Grossmann Mr. Bornemann did not want to have any law snit and he agreed to come to terms. He undertook unt to use the labels, althongh he did not believe that the trade marks were those of Mr. Grossmann. Mr. Bornemann offered $35 to settle the question of costs. but Mr. Grossmann, or his solicitors (the plaintiffs), refused to accept $35 and said they would accept $100. Mr. Grossmann, however, made further alterations in the agreement and the costs were increased to $184. Mr. Bornemann paid $100 of this in accordance with the terms, but Mr. Grossmann refused to pay the remain- ing $84. The plaintiffs would say that they never for a moment promised or agreed with Mr. Grossmann that they would only charge him the costs they could get from the other side. They never thought of the question at all and it was not raised in any way.
Mr. Gedge, solicitor in the office of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes, and Master, was then called. He said that Mr. Grossmann went to him in
reference to his claim agaiut Mr. Bornemanu in reference to the infringement of trade marks. On the 23rd December witness wrote to Mr. Bornemann's solicitor, threatening legal proceedings.
His Lordship (to Mr Dennys)—The solicitor was you pr
Mr. Dennys-And you replied" Never mind what your opinion is I am going to sue you unless you settle the matter ?"
Witness--Yes.
On the 30th
December
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
Mr. Francis-I shall be very glad if you can hear it at once.
His Worship (to the Captain Superintendent of Police, who was sitting at the table next to Mr. Francis)-Mr. May, I see you here. Are you watching the case?
7.
up
Mr. May--I am watching the case. His Worship-Will take a seat here ? you Mr. Francis-I think it will be better for the present if he does not.
His Worship-Very well, then. Mr. Francis, in opening the case, said-The charges in this case are laid against Mr. Wit- chell. They are :--
(1) That he, being an Inspector of Police in and for the colony of Hongkong, did, at Victoria, in the said colony, on the 7th March, 1897, and on diviers dates thereafter, unlawfully and in breach of his duty as such Inspector as afore said, neglect to report to the Captain Superin tendent of Police the existence of unlawful gambling bouses in Wa Lane and Cheung Hing Lane, Victoria, aforesaid.
(2) That he, being an nspector of Police in and for the colony of Hongkong, did at Victoria in the said colony, on the 11th March, 1897. and on divers days thereafter, unlawfully, wil fully, and corruptly accept divers sums of money from the keepers or managers of sundry unlaw. ful gambling houses in Victoria aforesaid to refrain from reporting to the Captain Super intendent of Police the existence of such gam- gling houses and to protect the said gambling houses.
[July 21, 1897,
was going on anywhere in Hongkong, whether in his district or not, he failed to report it; secondly, that be accepted money from the keepers or managers of the gambling houses and failed to take steps to put down the houses as his duty required of him.
Defendant (pointing to a man in court who was in the custody of Acting Chief Inspector Mackie)-I beg to draw your Worship's atten- tion to that witness who, I presume, is going to give evidence against me. He was sitting in court during the whole time the learned counsel was making a statement and has heard every word.
His Worship-Is he a witness ? Mr. Francis-Yes.
Detendant--He was removed from gaol under- somebody's direction in charge of Inspector
Mackie.
His Worship was understood to say that if the man was a witness he ought not to have been in court.
The man was thereupon removed from the court.
Evidence was then called.
Defendant here asked Counsel to repeat his last question, which was done.
Hon. Francis Henry May said-I am Captain Superintendent of Police. The defendant is duly enrolled as a member of the Hongkong He has been an Inspector of Police Force. Police for the last two years. He has had charge of what is known as No. 1 section of the Central District. The section extends from the Central Market to the Kowshing Theatre and all the section of the town between Queen's Both the offences are offences at common law Road and the Praya within those limits. His and not under any Ordinance or any Act of special duties in that section were to suppress Parliament. In respect of the first offence I illegal gambling., I produce a copy of the Police would refer your Worship to " Archbold's Cri-reg lations. Rule 73 reads-" Constables are to minal Pleadings," page 892 of the 19th edition, report if they have reason to suspect the existence from which it appears that any neglect of duty by of a public gaming house, but they are on no an officer of justice is a misdemeanour and punish- account themselves to go in nor suffer anyone else in for the purpose of obtaining proof," able as such. With reference to the second charge I would refer your Worship to "Russell on That rule is in force and binding now. There Crimes," 16th chapter, where the offence of bri- is a laue called Kwai Wa Lane in No. 1 section. Mr. Dennys-Yes.
At the end of last year, I returned from leave Witness, continuing inanswer to Mr. Den-bery is fully defined. The facts in the case are
on the 7th October, and between that date and nys, said Mr. Denuys wrote stating that he very simple. First, there will be no difficulty
the end of November I received a large number could not see the difference between the flying in proving that the Inspector is a constable en-
of communications complaining of gambling in lion sitting on a volcano and a double-headed rolled under the provisions of the Hongkong
Police Ordinance, that he holds the position of Kwai Wa Lane. None of those communications eagle. (Laughter.)
were received by me from the defendant. Inspector of Police, and that it is a general Quty imposed on all constables by the Police rules and regulations, published with the authority of the Government under the Ordinance, that constables are to report if they have reason to suspect the existence of public gaming houses. Now the case. so far as it is known to the Crown, cmounts to this: The colony is divided for aertain purposes, especially in connection with this gambling business, into a certain number of sections. A special officer is in charge of each section with the special duty of restrain- ing and putting down all public gambling within that section. Now it would appear that gambling was going on in the section Queen's Road and Jervois Street, over which Inspector Witchell was presiding at the early part of the year. Certain complaints were forwarded to the Captain Superintendent of Police and attention was directed to this district with the result that certain active measures were taken and gambling was put an end to for the time being ip respect to this district. It would appear also that, before these gambling houses in this district were put down, Inspector Witchell had been deriving a considerable profit -something in the shape of $7 a day- from the gambling houses within his district and that when the gambling houses were closed he lost this income. He then took steps, knowing the existence of gambling in some neighbouring district for which he was not responsible, and suffering apparently from this loss of income, to send communications to the owners or
Mr. Lennys made an offer of $35 on ac- count of costs, and on the 4th January it was agreed that Mr. Bornemann should pay $100 as costs, but in consequence of Mr. Gross- maun having made additional alterations in the agreement between the parties the costs were increased to $184.
In cross-examination witness said his instruc- tions were to get what costs he could from Bornemann. The defendant did not say he wanted all his costs paid.
The ci se was, at this point, adjourned.
THE POLICE SCANDAL.
INSPECTOR WITCHELL COMMITTED FOR
TRIAL.
At the Police Court on Saturday, 27th inst. before Hon. H. E. Wodehouse. C.M.G.. Job Witchell, Inspector in the Hongkong Police Force, was placed in the dock by Inspector Duncan on charges arising out of the police scandal.
Mr. J. J. Francis, Q.C., appeared to pro- secute on behalf of the Attorney General, being instructed by Mr. H. L. Dennys (Crown Solicitor). The defendant was not represented by counsel.
The proceedings were opened in the following
manner.
.
His: Worship-Mr. Francis, have you any case ?
ROL
Mr. Francis-Yes, sir. It is a charge. I am sorry to say against Inspector Witchell for neglecting his duty as a police constable and accepting bribes.
| m nagers of gambling houses in the adjoining district saying that he was aware of the exist. ence of these gambling houses and although they were not in his district he could take effective steps to have these gambling houses closed, and asking them if they could not make him certain allowances or payments. As the result a payment was made to him for a period His Worship-Do you appear to prosecute ? of three months of at least $1 a day, or $30 a Mr. Francis-I appear here for the Attorney-month. I think we shall be able to General and am instructed by the Crown the payment was continued for three months. if Solicitor.
not for a longer period. Therefore, the first offence with which he is charged is that it having come to his knowledge that gambling
His Worship-Do you wish me to hear the oliarge at once?
prove
that
Witness-I should like to alter that statement. I think the Inspector did apply for one or two warrants.. I would not be sure if the informa- tion of the gambling was supplied to him by me. I rather think it was.
Mr. Francis-His application for these war- rants was after you received the communications and after yon had complained to him?
Witness-I would not swear to that, but I am positive that after my return to the colony the first intimation I had of the existence of gambling in Kwai Wa Lane was received from other sources than the Inspector. I issued four warrants in all.
Were there any captures ?-The Inspector himself made at least one capture on a warrant I think there were two convictions within that period and small fines were inflicted.
What was the result of the proceedings, s far as you know, in reference to Kwai W Lane The result was that I have received ne further complaints this year.
Did you yourself sometime go- Defendant-Will your Worship allow m the indulgence of pen and paper?
His Worship Certainly,
Mr. Francis-I do not know what th practice of the court is, but as this is a misde meanour perhaps the defendant would like sit at the table.
His Worship-I have no objection if it wi facilitate the defendant taking notes.
The defendant-Thank you, your Worship. The defendant then took a seat at the hea of the table and took notes of the evidence.
Mr. Francis (to witness): You, yoursel have, I think, effected a rather importaz capture in connection with gambling?
Witness-Yes.
No.
In what house and where was that Wa Lane-no, I beg your pardon, it was East Street.
Among the property seized there did you i fact find an almost complete set of accou