296
<<
f
#
$5
Ex
L
ON TITLES.
"
4
44
It
[April 16, 1898. quashes the conviction. It is the conviction we go on and not the charge.
The Chief Justice-You mean it has a bear-
ing on the question of evidence?
Mr. Justice Wise-Bat it does not make the conviction bad.
Mr. Pollock said he would not argue that, but he argued that this notice which was issued by the Police Magistrate could not in any way correct any errors which appeared on the face of the proceedings.
The Chief Justice-Are you arguing that the whole proceedings were bad because the charge was not amended?
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
Sir E. L. O'MALLEY is said to have I done on his arrival in the Straits, we do not know; perhaps some would and some would not, According to idiosyn- cracy. seems anomalous, however, that a Judge, occupying the important position he does and having regard to his standing in the public service, should have a less honorific title than officials very much his juniors who happen by virtue of their office to possess a seat in Council. The question, however, is not one calculated to greatly excite the community. Titles, of
Mr. Pollock said yes; that it was not amended course, have their importance, but by before conviction, and that no mere notice the untitled "man in the street the im- given by the learned Magistrate after convic portance is not ranked very highly. "Shalltion would set that right. That was his first "I address him as Captain or Major?" asked point. His second point was this: that if they were to consider the proceedings as bound down a clerk who had occasion to send a com- munication to a military officer whose dual to the 28th December the learned Magistrate improperly admitted evidence as evidence of an appointments rendered his correct designa- assault on the 28th December which ought not
'I don't know,' tion somewhat uncertain.
to have been legally admitted as evidence. replied the taipan, "better address him as Colonel;" which is always a safe principle point. He has given her six months for beat- to act upou and may be usefully applied to ing her on the 28th December, and the medical all ranks. If you want a policeman to make things pleasant for you, say in the way of allowing you to pass when he is placed on guard to keep the public back, you may address hin civilly as "Sergeant" and will probably find the title at as an sesame." Referring again to the title of 'His Honour" as applied to an adminis- trator, we ought perhaps to mention that our Penang contemporary suggests the use of the contraction "H.H.," which would have the advantage of elevating the bearer into the regions of royalty.
The Officer Administering the Govern- ment of the Straits Settlements, Mr. J. A. SWETTENHAM, is to have the title of "His "Honour" instead of the one hitherto cus- tomarily employed, namely, His Excel
lency,"
"From a reference to the subject in the Straits Times we gather that the change is made by Mr. SwETTENHAM'S OWD request. The Penang Gazette, however, treats the matter in a semi-jocular vein as a grievance and asks, what can the Honourable J. A. SWETTENHAM, Colonial Secretary of the Straits Settlements and Companion of a British Order of Knighthood, have done to merit this indignity, if indignity it be? The article proceeds: -"Some of our readers may recollect the contempt implied by Sir EDWARD O'MALLEY for the distinction of "His Honour,' when he reached the "Straits from Hongkong and became Chief "Justice here. They, also, may call to "mind his successful effort in the direction "of an alteration and his chtaining the dignity of Honourable.' Honourable' “is, therefore, apparently more honourable than 'His Honour.' How, then, comes is that the official who is called upon to take "the position of the Queen's representative "in the colony and serve his Queen as chief "officer of that colony falls, like Lucifer, from the heaven occupied by Honour- "ables' to the dubious quarter inhabited "by only 'His Honours ?""" The reference to Sir EDWARD O'MALLEY takes us by sur- prise, for we should have thought he was one of the last men in the world to have troubled himself about "frills." It appears to be a fact, however, that in popular estimation, if not in law, the title' Hou- ourable" stands higher than that of "His Honour," which is the desiguation to which Judges in the Crown Colonies, in Hongkong at all events, are entitled. This may perhaps be due in some measure to the usage of the press. It is as convenient to write and as easy to read "The Hon. A. B. "So and So" as " Mr. A. B. So and So," and the use of this form is generally regarded as agreeable. People entitled to the de- signation of "Honourable” therefore get the full benefit of it. His Honour," however, does not conveniently lend itself to con- traction and is too cumbrous for ordinary use. "His Honour Mr. Justice So-and- "So" does not scan well and the result is that Judges, if they have no other handle to their name, are usually spoken of and written of simply as "Mr. Justice So-and-So." "Justice
is in itself an honorific dis- tinction, but it is not deemed altogether satisfactory, partly perhaps because
it is not 80 well known or under- stood as that of Honourable. Everyone when he hears or reads of "The Hon.” knows what is meant, but a former resident of Hongkong who was called upon on a matter of business by a newly arrived Puisne Judge whose card announced him as "Mr. Justice So-and-So" was surprised to learn afterwards that he had had an inter- view with a Judge; he had taken "Justice for the gentleman's Christian name. In court the Judges are usually by courtesy addressed as "Your Lordship," but it is a courtesy title only of no legal validity, and is seldom or never used outside the court, even in direct personal address. Sometimes in official circles the designation of "The Honourable" is applied to the Judges when speaking or writing of them in the third person, but the form has no rant either in official regulation or mon use. Whether the Judges themselves would desire a different arrangement, as
"
war-
com-
SUPREME COURT.
9th April.
IN APPELLATE JURISDICTION,
11
open
BEFORE SIR JOHN CARRINGTON (CHIEF JUSTICE) AND MR. JUSTICE WISE (PUISNE JUDGE).
NIP SHEUNG CHOI, APPELLANT, SUI NUN
RESPONDENT.
Mr. Pollock (instructed by Messrs. Mounsey and Brutton) said this was an appeal from a decision of Mr. Wodehouse, Police Magistrate. on the 3rd January of this year, by which he six months' imprisonment with hard labour. sentenced the appellant, Nip Sheung Choi, to Their Lordships would see that the charge made against the appellant at the Police Court was that she unlawfully did assault, beat, and abase one Sui Nun. a girl under the age of 14 years, on the 8th December, 1897, and divers other dates, thereby causing her grievous the face of it that the charge was irregular. bodily harm." Their Lordships would see from The appellant was charged with beating Sui Nun on the 28th December and divers other
4
46
dates."
Mr. Justice Wise-But the Magistrate does not find that.
Mr. Pollock-There is no amendment to the
charge. As your Lordship has just pointed out, the Police Magistrate in the notice which was issued by him with regard to this finding says that he convicted the appellant for the assault upon the girl on the 28th December, 1897, but I think it is a material fact for your Lordships to know that the charge which was made against the appellant in this case was for assaulting the little girl on the 28th December "and divers other dates," and that
course of the proceedings.
never amended during the
that charge was
Mr. Justice Wise-I do not know that it is necessary to amend it; he has given her six months for the assault on the 28th December.
Mr. Pollock-I think it is an important fact for your lordships to bear in mind-the fact that the charge was assaulting the girl on the 28th December that the charge was never amended.
"and divers other dates," and
Mr. Justice Wise--I do not think that that
Mr. Justice Wise-Of course that is the
evidence referred to before the 28th.
Mr. Pollock said that that was the main
point upon the merits of the case.
The Chief Justice-We won't trouble you further. You are applying for leave to serve a motion.
Mr. Pollock-There is a point, and that is this: My contention is that we are entitled to ask your Lordships, in view of the fact that evidence has been improperly admitted, to say that the conviction ought to be quashed alto- gether.
The Chief Justice-You are moving the Court on certain grounds, and your application is for leave to serve notice of that motion on the respondent.
|
Mr. Pollock--Our application is for leave to appeal against the decision of the magistrate.
The Chief Justice-Of course the magistrate gives leave to appeal, and apparently under the ordinance you come before the Court for a motion. Leare to appeal has really been already granted. All the Court apparently has to do is to allow you to serve a motion on-re- spondent.
This point was argued at some length, Mr. Pollock stating that notice had already been served upon the respondent and also upon the Registrar. Ultimately it was decided that the course suggested by the Court should be ad- opted, leave to serve being granted.
13th April.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE SIR JOHN CARRINGTON (CHIEF JUSTICE.)
HARDOON V. BELILIOS.
In this case Elias A. Hardoon, an assistant plaintiff, and the defendant the Hon. E. R. in the firm of E. D. Sassoon and Co., was the Belilios, trading and carrying on business as Belilios and Co. The subject matter of the action was a claim by plaintiff against defendant to obtain an indemnity in respect of certain calls in the late Bank of China, Japan,
the and The Straits, Limited, which on
date of the liquidation of that company
were registered in the name of plaintiff and which on the same date were held and owned by defendant.
Mr. J. J. Francis, Q.C. (instructed by Mr. Brutton, of Messrs. Mounsey & Brutton), ap. peared for plaintiff and Mr. E. Robinson (in- structed by "Messrs. Deacon and Hastings) for defendant.
Mr. Francis, in an opening statement of con- siderable length, read the petition in the case and defendant's answer to that petition. He said that broadly it seemed to him that the one important question of fact in the case was whether at any time and when defendant be- came the beneficial owner of the shares in ques tion; whether he was or was not the original purchaser of these shares; whether, if as he stated in his defence, as the original pledges he ultimately so dealt with the shares as tɔ make himself the beneficial owner, Dealing