102
back on the old scale P-If I could get anybody to give me double brokerage I should certainly get it.
Is it not pretty clear from the books that there was a pretty considerable diminution in the amount of business Mr. Gorham did through your firm after November? There were four transactions in November and six in December. -Yes.
Has not the delay in bringing on this trial arison through your getting Mr. Drummond down from Shanghai ?-Not altogether; I think you were the cause. (Laughter.)
Do you not think the entries relating to Mr. Polishwalla justified Mr. Gorham's statement that Mr. Polishwalla was little better than a dummy P-No.
Can you show me any account of monies paid to Mr. Polishwalla by your firm P-His accounts will show; I cannot show you.
Do you remember any cheques being paid by him ?--Yes.
When and where ?—I do not remember. Do you understand that Mr. Kelly has a general authority to buy and sell for Polish- walla at Kelly's absolute discretion ?-I believe he has.
Is it not extremely convenient sometimes in the course of business to have some one who has given you such a general authority for buying and selling ?--Yes.
*
Haven't you occasionally made use of him in that way for your own convenience or to oblige customers ?—I cannot recollect.
What a sad memory! Was it not extremely convenient over this transaction of Indo-Chinas, as it enabled your firm to make double brokerage on that day out of a transaction which profited Mr. Polishwalla nothing ?-No; we did the business for Mr. Gorham's benefit.
Yes, of course. Will you kindly say how much brokerage you made that day on the sale and purchase of those 100 Indo-Chinas ?---$125. What is the regular profit or Indo-China ahares P-50 cents.
But by transferring the shares first of all to Polishwalla and then from Polishwalla, you were ́enabled to put another $75 in the firm's pocket? -No, I sold the shares to Kelly, and he sold them to Polishwalla. '
Then the partners buy and sell between them- selres P-No.
you
You sold them to Kelly; that is what said. Certainly, that is what I said. I gave him the order.
And of course it was Mr. Kelly who put in his own pocket the $75 extra P-No.
It went to the benefit of the firm, and Mr. Polishwalla was never asked or seen with refer- ence to the transaction from beginning to end? -I never saw him.
But you know perfectly well that Mr. Kelly did not see him?-I do not know.
You must know perfectly well from your own. statement here. You said he could not have done that, because when Perry came in to buy, Kelly was sitting at his desk and you went over to him and told him Perry wanted the shares, and he said, "Very well, give them to him."- Yes.
Can you tell me why you only charged Po- lishwalla on that transaction half brokerage ?— We gave the other half to Mr. Perry,
Isn't it funny that it should have worked out quite square P-No; Polishwalla did not want the shares.
Are you aware that Kelly offered to show Gorham all the entries in your books connected with these transactions ?—Yes,
Are the statements in Mr. Masters' letter that was read as to the offer to allow Gorham
to see all his transactions in your books correct? -Yes.
Why was that offer withdrawn; when he came to look over these transactions you re- fused to let him see them ?-He would not come in the first place, and then he and Mr. Wilkin- son came. Then Mr. Master came and then of course they began to cross-examine me, and Mr. Master said, "Don't answer." He said, What account do you want ?"
Your offer was to show all the entries in the books relating to the transactions. Certainly we did.
|
Very well then, why didn't you show them to him when he came ?-He began cross-examin- ing us..
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
|
You began cross-examining him first.-He commenced cross-examining me by asking when I joined the firm and so on.
Why did you refuse to allow him when you had offered to let him see your books P-We did not refuse. We said we would allow him to see any particular account,
That was not your offer. Your offer was to let him see all the transactions in your books.
-Mr. Master was there.
And you were acting on his advice ?--Yes. Did Gorhain happen to mention the name of any of the persons who had promised to pay his expenses in connection with this suit No Did your firm have any trouble with Mr. Wicking about transactions in shares P-Not to my knowledge.
No trouble or dispute with Mr. Thomas Ho- ward ?--Yes, there was.
You had sold him shares by numbers and when you came to deliver them you had not got those shares and you offered him shares with other numbers on ?-I can explain that.
[February 12, 1898.
You did not carry to your clients in the same way as Polishwalls carried his 150 shares ?—No.
Did you get double brokerage from your clients?—Yes, frequently.
Does it appear on the face of your books when you get double brokerage -No.
So that nobody looking at your books could tell whether a sale was at the ordinary broker- age or double brokerage?—No, except by the debit and credit accounts.
Can you give me the names of any persons whom you have charged double brokerage be- fore this action commenced ?-Yes. Mr. Ewens, Mr. Wicking, my brother, Mr. W. H. Potts, Mr. Hardoou, Mr. Polishwalla.
Mr. Francis-We will not trouble about Mr. Polishwalla. Mr. Kelly had full powers to do what he pleased with Mr. Polishwalla.
Witness (contioning)-The Bank of China, and there may be more. Mr. Master was one, and Mr. Pollock was another. (Laughter.)
In re-examination by Mr. Drummond witness said that to get double brokerage there must always be a special agreement
Is that what happened P-No; 150 of them were all right, but 50 were the wrong numbers. Mr. E. S. Kelly was pert called and ex- And these numbers had been put into. some- amined by Mr. Drummond. He said in Sep. body else's contract and charged to that person?tember, 1896, Mr. Wicking asked him to đo
The whole mistake arose through the Char- tered Bank giving out the wrong shares and we did not change the numbers in the book. Mr. Howard satisfied himself of this afterwards. He went and looked at the delivery book.
Do you remember a little difference with Mr. Wicking in regard to shares in Olivers Mines P
I had no difference.
But have you heard of the firm having any difference? I think he was annoyed about the purchase of some Olivers.
At a higher rate than was actually paid ?- No, I have never heard that.
him with a higher rate than you had actually Your firm rendered him an account charging paid ?-No, I never know that.
There was no correspondence a number of letters exchanged between Mr Wicking and your firm on the subject ?-I do not recollect.
Are you prepared to say that nothing of the sort occurred or is it that your memory fails you ?--He was not pleased with the purchase; I remember that.
Was there not an extensive correspondence with reference to the purchase of those Olivers ? -No.
There was no correspondence at all ?--Not to my knowledge. I never saw it.
Was there ny little trouble with any body of the name of Kew.at Carmichael's ?-No; so far as I know.
Were the numbers of the 150 Bank shares sold to Mr. Polishwalla on the 27th November specified in his contract? I do not think they were. I am almost certain they were not.
Won't your books show ?—The books will not show.
1
At that interview with Gorham what did you want him to say again to your face ?-The statement about the business proposition.
What was there in that that led you to make such a dramatic proposal? One would think he had said something desperate.-It was not a nice thing to say.
And you refused to show Gorham your books --Well, the lawyers had the case then.
And of course it had gone to the devil! Have you ever offered Gorham (Laughter) any money to settle the case P-No.
Has any one of your firm offered any money?
-No.
Can you swear that, none of your partners have done it ?-Not to my knowledge.
Did you offer to pay his costs if he would refer the matter to arbitration P--No.
Do you know that many people have expressed considerable astonishment that a man in your position joined Benjamin and Kelly when you did ?-No.
broker-while you were in Russell and Co-were While you were carrying on business as a
Benjamin and Kelly considered a very reputable firm to do business with ?—Yes. they were.
You never heard of anything against them ?--- No, nothing more than brokers' talk; nothing marks. damaging to their character-unfriendly re-
Has your firm been in the habit of carrying shares themselves for clients P-Yes, we have.
Then you do stand in the position of buyers and sellers No.
|
what he could to save the plaintiff from any loss on Bank shares. Witness mentioned transactions he had put through for the plain- tiff and denied that the plaintiff gave him any. instructions to sell the Indo-China shares. Mr. Potts carried out that_transaction.
The case was then adjourned until 11.30 on the 12th February.
HONGKONG SANITARY BOARD.
A, meeting of the Sanitary Board was held
sided, and there were also present- Hon. R. D. at the offices on the 10th February. Dr. J. M. Atkinson (Principal Civil Medical Officer) pre- Ormsby (Director of Public Works), Hon. F. H. May (Captain Superintendent of Police), Dr. Clark (Medical Officer of Health), and Mr. H. McCallum (Secretary),
MINUTES.
The minutes of the last meeting were read and confirmed.
DISELSED CATTLE. The Medical Officer of Health and the Colonial Veterinary Surgeon, who were appointed a select committee under the provisions of Ordinance 1 of 1895 to carry out on behalf of the Board the provisions of By-laws 6 and 7 of Schedule A of Ordinance 17 of 1887, reported that eight head of cattle which were landed on Saturday morning last from Canton were found. to be infected with foot-and-mouth disease and they were therefore shot and buried.
PLAGUE AT BOMBAY,
Returns were laid on the table showing the progress of bubonic plague at Bombay. From - the 2nd December last to the 5th January 645 cases had occurred resulting in 542 deaths, and from the 6th to the 18th January 1,088 attacks of the disease proved fatal in 1,064 cases.
ADJOURNMENT. The Board adjourned until Thursday week.
THE WATER SUPPLY.
The Hon. R. D. Ormsby, Water Authority, courteously supplies us with the following interesting information on the water supply
On 1st January, 1898, the water in Tytam re- servoir was 3 feet 5 in. below the overflow, 're- presenting a storage of 359,642,000 gallons, while the water in Pokfulum reservoir was 10 feet above the overflow, representing a storage of 68,257,000 gallons. The total storage was thus 427,899,000 gallons.
The following are the figures on the corres- ponding dates last year — Tytam....6 ft. 1 in. below 341,000,000 gallons.
Level. Storage.
Pokfulam...4 ft. 2 in.
13
n 56,695,000
Total.... 397,695,000 On 1st February, 1898, the water in Tytam
reservoir was 10 feet below the overflow, repre- senting a storage of 312,000,000 gallons, while the water in Pokfulum reservoir was 3 feet 9 inches below the overflow, representing a stor- age of 57,658,000 gallons. The total storage was thus 369,658,000 gallons.