490
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
|
June 17, 1899.
business
they
did not attempt to
and
Lenug Tan Po, which was accordingly done, he paid $500 to Yip Tat Cho for his share, oned with the evidence of the plaintiffs and when the final agreements, one for each 6th April, 1896, but, when cross examined, had not tried to suppert their allegations 'by partner, were sent round, the name of Leung stated that he had that very same day drawn the evidence of Chan Hi Wan, the secretary Tun Po was not inserted but the name Leang out the $500 for the purpose from the Tiu Un of the Chai On Marine Insurance Company. Shan Yui Toug was put instead. As regards firm, dealers in soy, with whom he had a deposit He was evidently anxious to back up his payment of the five hundred dollars, Yip Tat of $700. The manager of the Tin Ứn firm and chairman and asserted that although he was Cho admitted that each partner was duly the books which were examined corroborated not present at the four meetings, he saw Leung credited in the Books with payment of his Leung Yuen Kwan's statement, and that Tan Po go into the room on each of the fone share and stated that all the partners except gentleman suggested that it was evident Yip occasions. It is singular that he should recollect Leang Tan Po paid their money before the Tat Cho had misappropriated his five hundred this so well, as the meeting in no way concerned business started in May, 1896, but he said dollars and, therefore, did not wish to admit that | him, But, when asked when the meetings took that Lenng Tun Po, who was secretary to he was a partner at all. Leung Yuen Kwan place, he fixed the 19th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd Jan.` the Houng Sing Steamboat Company, Limited, bears out Loung Tan Po's version. He states | uary, 1897, which is nearly a year prior to the and a friend of his, did not pay tilt six that he was present on 2nd April, 1896, date alleged by the plaintiffs. I can only months afterwards and that his payment was at an interview at the Heung Sing be charitably suppose the plaintiffs were misled by by a cheque dated 14th November, 1896, for tween Leung Tan Po and Yip Tat Cho, Yip Tat Cho, who it seems l
ounded from the $491.80, signed by Leung Tun Po and drawn when the former's refusal to join the Chonng colony for several days in favour of the Cheung Shing firm. Asked to Shing firm was discussed, and that he was closed its doors, a fact account for the difference between that amount sufficiently impressed with Yip Tat Cho's state! deny. They may have got muddled owing to and five hundred dollars, he stated that he owed ments as to the good business to be done in the fact that the defendant Ng Chúng Pau↑ Leung Tun Po three dollars and forty cents matches to accept his invitation to call on him
took two fares, one of which was allotted for a Manila Lottery ticket which the latter at the Straits Insurance Office at 171, Queen's to his uncle the defendant Ng Yui Tung had bought for him and also owed him five Road Central. This he did the next day and, Tong, who though a partner took no part dollars which he had borrowed on one occasion at that interview, on the 3rd April, 1896, he in the management of the business, when he gave a dinner to a mandarin_named agreed to take up the share which Leung Tun as to whose residence and occupation the Wong Ngok. He said Leung Tun Pa was Po had got out of taking and gave his Tong plaintiffs in their petition say they know one of his guests and when he, Yip Tat Cho, name, Leung Shan U Tong, as the name to be | nothing. came to pay the bill he had not enough money put in the agreement. On the 4th of April he and so he borrowed five dollars from Lenug gave notice of withdrawal of the $500 which he | Tun Po to wake up the amount. As, therefore, both withdrew from the Tin Un Firm and paid he owed Loung Tun Po eight dollars and forty to Yip Tat Cho on the 6th April; and in due cents the latter only gave a cheque for the differ- course he received the copy of the partnership ence. It is obvious that the mixing up of the agreement which is sent to each partner, on private debts of one of the partners in connec the 25th May, when he returned from a visi to tion with a cheque due to the firm for the the country. He produced this document in amount of a share in the partnership busi- Court. In face of such evidence it seems clear ness is ao undesirable transaction, but un- that Yip Tat Cho has been guilty of perjury. less this was the cheque given by Loung
I will briefly allude to two other episodes as Tun Po in payment of his five hundred dollar to which conflicting evidence was given, namely, share. Yip Tat Cho would have been in a diffi-a partnership dinner and certain meetings of onity, because he could not point out any other the partners. just before the shop closed its payment by Leaug Tan Po. On the other doors. hand, Leang Tan Po utterly denied that he It was contended and deposed to that Leang had ever asked to have his Tong uame put in Tan Po was present at a dinner given to the the agreement instead of the name Leung Tan partners by Yip Tat Cho, the date of which was Po which he had himself signed, denied that stated by Tam Tsz Kong to have been May or the name inserted was his Tong naine, denied June, 1896. This, it was urged, showed he was having ever bought a Lottery ticket for Yip Tat a partner. Leung Tun Po admits that he did Cho, denied all knowledge of the mandarin, the go to a dinner, But he alleges the date of it was dinner, and the loan, and absolutely denied hav-¦ 23rd March, 1896, while he was intending to be- ing ever paid for any share in the Company.come a partner, and that the absence at that At last, however, one point of agreement was reached. Leung Tan Po not only admitted that he had signed and given the cheque for $491.60 but he explained the bistory of that cheque and supported his account of the matter by documentary evidence that left very little doubt in my mind as to the truth of his state- ment.
|
❘
¦
Be that as it may, I have already stated that I am satisfied the cheque for $491,60 was not given by Leung Tun' Po in payment of his share. Yip Tat Cho does not suggest that Leung Tan Po paid any other sum, and I therefore hold that Leung Yuen Kwan is, ns he claims to be, the partner whose name is inserted as Leung Shan Yai Tong in the patnership agreements and that Lenng Tun Po never was a partuer in the Cheung Shing firm. I observe that Leung Yuen Kwan began suit, No. 25 of 1898, as long ago as last March, against the other partners, claiming to have the patuership accounts taken, and he stated in Court that he expected that when Yip Tat Cho was made to render the accounts there would be a profit to be divided between the partners instead of a loso to be made good by them. have no means of judging how far his expecta tions may be realized, but it, at least, shows he is in earnest in declaring himself to be a partner
tol in the firm.
The costs of the issue I was asked to decide will follow the erent.
dinner of certain persons whom Yip Tit Cho hud As regards Yip Tat Cho my duty, althongh told him were going to join the firm made him painful, seems clear. Section 23 of Ordinance suspicious of Yip Tat Cho and caused him to No. 12 of 1873, states that where it appears to write the letter of 27th March backing out of his the Court that perjury has been committed by arrangement and asking Yip Tat Cho to get any person examined as a witness in open Court someone else in his place. On the whole, I am not it shall be lawful for the Court, instead of satisfied that Leung Tuu Po attended any din-directing a prosecution to be instituted, either ner given after the firm started business or after to commit such witness as for a contempt of the final agreements sent to the partners were Court to prison for any time not exceeding made, aud I notice that those who deposed to three months with or without hard labour, or the dinner differ materially as to the dite when to fine such witness in any sum not exceeding it took place.
one hundred dollars. ·
The more important of the two episodes to which I have alluded is that connected with the meetings of the partners a few days prior to the stoppage of the firm.
It certainly appears to me in this case that Yip Tat Cho committed perjury in bis examin ation as a witness in open Court, us regards the cheque and as regards the $50 ) alleged to have been paid to him by Leung Yuen Kwan as well
as in several other material matters.
It seems a firm in Singapore owed Ng Chenug Fan, one of the defendant partners, a sum of $500, and Ng Cheung Pan asked Leung Tau Po, whose shipping firm had agents named the Sai Tai, at singapore, to collect that money for bim. The money was duly collected, a draft on the Mercantile Bank of India, Houg- kong, for the five hundred dollars was bought and sent to Hongkong, and Leung Tung Po
The plaintiffs alleged that these meetings paid it into the National Bank of China on the occurred on the 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th Janu- ninth of November. 1896. The Agents at ary, 1898, at the Chai On Marino Insurauce Singapore charged one per cent. for collection, Office, of which basiness Tam Tsz King was three dollars and twelve cents for the premium chairman. They say Leung Tan Po was pre- they had to pay on the draft, and the item of sent and did not deny being a partner but re- twenty-eight cents for postage stamps and extras fused to sign any document to contribute his completed the difference of eight dollars and share towards payment of a certain dishonoured forty cents between the draft and the cheque. bill of exchange, saying he must consult his
Counterfoil of the cheque was as follows. uncle, who owned part of his share. They admit | he had to say in his defence why he should not
11]1896. Tseung Sing on account of pay ment to Ng Cheng Pan $191.69," The Singa- | agement of the business, but contend that his his previous evidence and said it was true and as
The
pore firm's accounts with their pincipals, the Hongkong shipping firm of which Leung To Pao was Secretary, boar out his version of this transaction, and he explained that he paid the cheque to the Cheung Shing firm instead of to Ng Cheung Pau because the latter had asked him to do so, as he, Ng Cheung Pau, owed the firm money y and would be temporarily away from
ʼn the colony when the mouny would arrivé from Singapore. But it is
that
3
that Leung Tuu Po took no part in the man
conduct at those meetings was inconsistent with his having no share in the business. Lung Tan l'o, on the contrary, says he was only present at two meetings, and states that he only went on some insurance business, He alleges that at the first meeting Tam Tse King asked him whether he was a partner, to which he replied he was not. Tam Tse King then said Yip Tat Cho told me you were" and he
To allow such deliberate perjury to go un- punished is to stand by and see the fountains of justice poisoned at their very source without attempting to stop the evil. I accordingly commit Yip Tat Cho to prison for three months with hard labour.
Yip Tat Cho was then called upon to state what
be committed and he, substantially, reiterated
that the liars were Leung Tun Po and Leung Yuen Kwan, whose evidence was inconsistent with his. The Court however committed. Yip Tat Cho to prison and thereupon both Mr. Fiancis and the Acting Attorney General stated they both agreed Yip Tat Cho had been guilty of perjury.
Mr. Francis said he was heartly glad his lord. ship had exercised summary power in the mat-
Yip Tat Cho is correct evidens then asked whether he was the Leung Shau Yui ter.
T'ong in the partnership agreement, to which he
with that name or person. He admits that hav ing been sent for he went to a second meeting, when he was asked to sign the paper for Lenug Shan Yai Tong, which he declined to do and stated that he had nothing to do with the partnership. I should have been more impress
His Lordship said he had thought over this
to him that Mr. Francis, whose witness Lip Tat Cho was, agreed with the view he had taken of the matter. There was no man more averse than he to the exercise of arbitrary powers without the person concerned having opportunity of defending himself. But he
the cheque represented Lenng pot replied substantially that he had nothing to do | matter a great deal. It was very satisfactory payment for his five hundred dollars share in the firm, the whole eight shares were daly paid for and no money could have been received from Leung Ynen Kwan in respect of the share of the person called Leung Shan Yin Tong, Yet Loung Yuen Kwan not only declared that