འར།མགས་
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
at
ment, however, cannot have much difficultying to the official circle is one of the best in coming to a decision without the advice guarantees for decency and the avoidance of of that body. The building of houses on the painful accidents that sometimes re- archways over the entrance of lanes is sult from carelessness in the arrangements. entirely opposed to sanitary principles. The The Superintendent of Victoria Gaol, on objection is of course greater in proportion being applied to for orders of admission for to the height of the houses in the lane. the Press in connection with the execution and the height of the obstruction, but that took place on the 12th January, replica any obstruction whatever is objectionable that he had decided not to admit reporters. as it necessarily interferes with the free cirWhether this decision was arrived -culation of air and more or less excludes the direct rays of the sun. It would be an anachronism for any civilised Government of the present day to sanction such structures or to sanction their continuance when the lapse of vested interests permits of their re- moval. The Director of Public Works seemed to be influenced in his opinion by what he considered the hardship to the owner of the house built over the ground in question. If there is any real hardship in the matter it would be better to meet it by monetary or other compensation than by permitting the continuance of the obstruc tion. Where for any reason the renewal of a Crown lease is refused liberal con- sideration should be given to the in- terests of the parties affected thereby, for when a person holds land On
on his own authority, or after reference to the Government, we do not know, but if the former it seems desirable that some rule should be laid down on the subject and that the practice should not be allowed to vary with the individual views of the officials who may successively be in charge of the Gaol. On the occasion of previous ex- ecutions in the Gaol orders of admission have always been given to representatives of the Press, and that seems the wiser
course.
SUIREME COURT.
12th January.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
> [January 19, 1898.
13th January.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE SIR JOHN CARRIngton (ChieF JUSTICE) AND MR. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE)..
T. HOWARD AND M. J. D. STEPHENS V. SIR WILLIAM ROBINSON, G.C.M.G., AS GOVERNOR.
The plaintiffs claim was for a writ of man- damus.
Mr. J.J. Francis, Q.C. (instructed by Messrs. Deacon and Hastings), appeared for the plain- tiffs, who are Thomas Howard and Matthew John Denman Stephens. The Attorney-Gen- eral, Hon. W. M. Goodman (instructed by Mr. H. I. Dennys, Crown Solicitor), appeared for the defendant.
المي
Mr. Francis said the claim was for a writ of mandamus and the proceedings were taken
under the provisions of section 85 of the code.
in
A petition had been filed by the plaintiffs and answer filed by the defendunts, and his Lordship the Chief Justice in chambers had settled the issues arising between the parties on those pleadings and had directed that the first two of those issues, which involved thesettlement of important questions of law, should be disposed of first. At the suggestion of the plaintiffs and with the consent of the learned Attorney-
lease from the Crown it is always assumed BEFORE SIR JOHN CARRINGTON (CHIEF General it was arranged that the matter should
that a renewal will be obtainable on the expiry of the lease, though possibly at a higher rental, to be fixed in accordance with the value of the surrounding property. The idea of dispossession without compensation seldom or never presents itself to a Crown leaseholder. If, therefore, there is any hard- shipin the Lau Kwai Fong case let the owner be properly compensated, but the Govern ment would commit a grave error if it sanctioned the continuance or an obstruc- tion at the entrance to lane. The granting of an annual lease would be a very inadvisable expedient, as it would only lay up difficulties for the future and tend to prevent improvements in the lane.
a
མ
REPORTERS AT EXECUTIONS.
The question of the admission of repre sentatives of the press to executions has been engaging the attention of the Institute of Journalists and it was decided some
time
Home ago to appeal to the Secretary to lay down a uniform rule on the subject. At present the prac- tice varies in different gaols: in some re- porters are not admitted at all, in others one only is admitted, and in others a number are admitted. The duty of attending executions is a disagreeable one of which the reporters are no doubt glad to be re- lieved, but on grounds of public policy it seems expedient that they should be allowed to be present. The reason of the change from public to private executious was to do
awny
with the demoralising influences atten- dant upon the drawing together of a big crowd to witness the death of a fellow crea- ture; but it was not intended, we believe, that a veil of strict secrecy should be drawn over what actually took place in connection with the event. Sensational and morbid descriptious are of course undesir able, and from that point of view there may be something to be said in favour of the exclusion of the Press, but on the other hand the presence of spectators not belong-
JUSTICE)
THE NAM SHANG FIRM V. HIP WAT LAM, TRADING AS THE YAU CHEONG FIRM. Plaintiffs, who are 'imber merchants carrying on business at 141, Taikoktsui, Kowloon, claimed 53,979.72, being the balance due for goods sold and delivered to the defendant, who is a con- tractor and carried on business. until recently at 19, High Street, Hongkong.
Mr. Pollock (instructed by Mr. Gedge, of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes, and Mastery appeared for the plaintiffs. The defendant did not appear, uor was he represented by counsel.
..
be tried before the Full Court. The issues on the question of law, as settled by the Chief Justice, were as follows:-(1) Assuming that the property or business of the plaintiffs has suf- fered depreciation or been injuriously affected by reason of the works authorized by the Praya Reclamation Ordinance, 1889, does the said Or- dinance throw any duty on the defendant to inquire into and assess the amount of such depreciation or injurions affecting? (2) If such a duty is thrown on the defendant is it one of which the Court, having regard to the pro- visions of the said Ordinance, can properly en- force the performance by a writ of mandamus ? Mr. Pollock said the plaintiffs from time to Counsel asked their Lordships' permission to time supplied goods and materials to the defen- slightly amend the first issue by adding after dant, who made occasional payments, and the words Praya Reclamation Ordinance, balances were struck. There was now owing 1889," the words "and assuming that the Go- to the plaintiffs the sum of $3,979.72. At vernor has refused to investigate the plaintiffs' the time of the issue of the writ the defendant claim." He did not think the case could be had got into pecuniary difficulties and absconded properly argued out without having that' from the colony. A writ of foreign attachment amendment made, and he was particularly was obtained against him and the present pro
desirous to have it strictly regular because it ceedings were taken under that writ. Counsel was the intention of the plaintiffs to carry In view of a proposed to proceed with the examination of the case as far as possible. the garnishees and to ask his Lordship what possible appeal he was very desirous of having property, movable or immorable, was subject the isshes as carefully framed as possible. It must be assumed for the purpose of the argu- to attachment under the writ, and to then ask
ment that the plaintiffs had suffered some in- for execution to issue:
At this point Mr. M. WISlade (who was injuries, and it must also be assumed that the structed by Messrs. Deacon and Hastings) said Governor had refused to perform a duty which he appeared for two of the garnishees, Father plaintiffs alleged was incumbent on him. Torres and Mr. W. Danby, who had no pro- perty liable to attachment in their hands.
Mr. Pollock objected to his friend appearing. The plaintiffs had certain admissions that certain money and materials belonging to the defendant were on the premises of the garnishees. If the garnishees intended to set up some title in the money and materials they should have put in a claim to the property.
-
His Lordship thought the best course would be for the plaintiffs to prove their original claim first, and the question of the garnishees could be dealt with if the claim was established.
Mr. A. Brown, assistant bailiff, spoke to serving copies of the writ of foreign attachment on the garnishees, who are the Humphreys Estate and Finance Co., Limited, Messrs. Palmer and Turner, Reverend Father Torres, and Mr. W. Danby.
Judgment was given for the plaintiff for the amount and costs.
T Court then granted counsel power to examine garnishees.
Mr. Clemont Palmer was examined. The Court determined that any sums due under the contract with Hamphreys Estate and Finance Co were subject to attachment, and gave leave to issue execution in respect thereof, the writ as regards the other garnishees to remain subsisting.
The Court then adjourned.
|
He
The Attorney-General said he must strongly object to such an amendment being made: would be sorry to see put on record an assump tion that the Governor had not done his duty. That was one of the issues of fact which, would have to be argued if the Court was of opinion that a mandamus could issue. Their Lordships on Saturday said that the parties should then suggest ady alterations, but none were sug- gested. The amendment was quite unnecessary for the purpose of the argument, which was purely on questions of law and not of fact.
The Chief Justice-I think, Mr. Francis, that the refusal is implied in the form of the question.
Mr. Francis-Has your Lordship noticed what the Attorney-General has just said, that he has come here prepared to argue those ques- tions of law on the assumption that the Governor had not neglected to perform his duty? That is exactly what I anticipated,
The Attorney-General-We have come here to discuss the legal aspect of two issues of law. Now my friend wants one of the issues suddenly. altered. It is not fair and it is not right.
The Paisue Judge-Mr. Francis, why did you not suggest that alteration before ?
Mr. Francis-Well, my Lord, it escaped my notice.
The Chief Justice-You did not think of it in time?