ނ
196
Connoil was of another opinion, and whereas I thereupon desired to have my dissent recorded and gave notice that I would at the then next meeting of Council lay upon the table the reasons for my dissent, uuder Rule 32 of the Standing Rules and Orders of the Council; now, therefore, I lay upon the Council
tapļo statement of my said reasons.
a
3. On the 23rd November last a? Bill entitled "The New Territories Land Court Ordinance, 1899," was introduced and read a first time and was, on the 25th November last, published in English only in the Gazette. The same Bill
was read a second time on the 30th November last, and was referred to the Law Committee.
4. The Bill considered in Committee on the 15th March instant is in substance a totally different Bill from that read a second time and referred to the Law Committee, and the Law Committee had no instructions or authority from this Council so to alter the said Bill.
5. The essential differences are as follows:- (a) The original Bill proposed the constitu- tion of a Court to consist of three Members designated in the Bill by their offices, one of whom was the Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court, and another of them an experienced Solicitor. The amended Bill proposes to con. stitute a Court of two members only, to be appointed by the Governor without any restric- tion or provision to secure the appointment of any person as a member thereof possessed of legal knowledge or training.
(b.) The original Bill gave the proposed Court power to determine solely as to the right of existing owners and occupiers of land in the New Territories to obtain certificates or recognition of their titles from the Crown. The amended Bill gives the proposed Court power to hear and determine all claims to land of any kind whatsoever in the New Terri. tory notwithstanding any previous registration and whether arising between the Crown and the occupier or between owners, occupiers, or others.
(c.) The original Bill was framed for the purpose of enabling existing titles to be verified and authenticated by certificate from the Crown, and for preventing occupation of land after refusal of such certificate without a fresh grant from the Crown. (See section 12.) The amended Bill by section 15 confiscates to the Crown all the land in the New Terri- tories, disregards all former titles, howarar old or well founded, and declares all occupants of land in the New Territories trespassers from a date to be hereafter defined by the Governor unless they obtain fresh titles from the Crown. (d.) The original Bill was in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 of the Convention of the 9th June, 1898, for the cession of the New Territories. The amended Bill disregards and sets aside the provision of the said Convention against expropriation or expulsion of the inhabitants of the district included in the cession and declares the whole soil to be the property of the Crown.
(6.) The original Bill permitted parties to be represented by Counsel and solicitor before the Court thereby constituted. The amended Bill takes away that right.
6. The amended Bill has not been published in the Gasette; has never been translated into Chinese nor published anywhere in the New Territory. It is a Bill that seriously affects existing private rights and against which all parties affected have the right to be heard by Connel. No opportunity has been afforded them of even knowing that such a Bill is under consideration.
7. For the above reasons I protest against the further proceeding with this amended Bill, It should be re-introduced and read a first time. It should be translated into Chinese, daly published in the New Territory, and ample time given the owners and occupiers of land there to consider it and if need be oppose it.
8. I further protest against the Bill as a whole and on its merits as being in violation of the provisions of the Convention of the 9th June, 1898, relating to the New Territories.
The "Gubbay" Cup, offered in connection with the "C" Maxim Gun Company of the Hongkong Volunteer Corps, has been won for the season 1899-1900 by Gunner Baldwin, whose woore of 95.3 points handicap was not heaten during the four shoots for this cap.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
SUPREME COURT.
19th March,
CRIMINAL Sessions,
March 24, 1900.
colony, they would rather pay money than have him convicted.
His Lordship-I should think $2,000 would have been a moderate sum.
.
Evidence having been given as to the issue of the warrant of the court, the service of whịch bis Lordship did not consider altogether satis-
BEFORE SIR JOHN CARRINGTON (CHIEF factory, the security was called forward.
JUSTICE).
ABUSING A POSITION OF TRUST,
Arthur Paul Precheur was obarged that on July 1st, whilst employed as clerk with J. Ull mann and Co., jewellers, eto.. Queen's Road Central, he stole a gold scarf pin and a diamond ring, the property of his employers. The pri soner pleaded guilty.
|
Addressing him, His Lordship said-You undertook that this man should appear at this court to stand his trial. If you do that you must understand that if the man does not appear you must pay the fine, and the sooner you pay the amount into the Treasury the better. Let the recognizances be escheated.
A bench warrant was issued.
ATTEMPTING TO BRIBE A CHINESE
CONSTABLE.
(
Lo Shing was changed with (1) offering a bribe to a public servant with a view to incline him to do an act contrary to his duty, and (2) offering a bribe to a public servant with the view to influencing his conduct. He pleaded not guilty.
The following composed the jury :—Mesars. A. O. Gutierrez (foreman), F. Weller, Hugh Berkley, Richard Hill, G. J. Sequeira, F. D. Maclean, and P. Moeller.
The Attorney-General (the Hon. W. Meigh Goodman) said he understood there was no desire on the part of the prosecution to press hardly up- on the young man.” No doubt he had committed a crime and he had made full confession of his orime and expressed his sorrow that he had com- mitted the crime, and the matter would be left in his Lordship's hands. The manager of Ullmann and Co. left the colony on the 10th May, of last year, and returned on the 8th of the August following. During his absence the prisoner and another man were left in joint charge The Attorney-General said that on the 15th of the business. When the manager came July Chinese Police Constable 341 found a back he did not notice anything particn- oumber of men engaged in playing að fantan lar at first, but in February last. when in a public street. The prisoner, who was aot- comparing the stock with the books, he founding as bauker, was taken into custody the that seven rings and a diamond scarf pin were others getting away. When half-way up to the missing. There was also one ring which be Police Station the prisoner took out of his did not recognise as part of his stock, and it pooket $1.40 and handed it over to the constable turned out that the prisoner had taken the and asked him to let him go. However, the diamond out of the pin and worked it, in constable refused to do so, aud when he arrived to a ring to replace the ring he had stolen. at the Police Station reported the matter to When this ring was discovered, the prisoner the Inspector on duty. The result was that the was questioned about the matter and he made
mau was brought before the Magistrate for the confession that he had taken the dia- rambling, and when that matter was disposed mond out of the scarf pin and worked it of a further charge was brought against the into a ring. Subsequently he confessed to prisoner-the charge of attempting to bribe a having taken the other rings, and express. public servant-and he was committed for trial. ed contrition for what he had done. He hoped ho would be given another chance, aud expressed a wish to work for $10 a month until he had paid off the full value of the articles appropriated. The manager, however, thought punishment should be inflicted upon the pri- souer as a warning to other men left in respon- sible positions.
His Lordship said-I am sorry to see a re- spectable young man like you in this position. I suppose some temptation brought you into this plight and you were not strong enough to re- sist it. I have regard to what the Attorney- General has said on behalf Mr. Ullmano, and I think it is kind of him to put it in that way. At the same time. I have to remember you were in a position of trust and confidence, and you have grossly abused that position of trust and confidence. The Court must punish you in a way that will show people placed in these posi tions of trust that they cannot abuse them in that way.
But for the Attorney-General's remarks I would have imposed a more severe sentence. The least I can impose upon you is. that you will undergo imprisonment with hard labour for six months.
THE COUNTERFEIT COIN CASE-THE BAIL
BACH BATED.
Tung Man Sang, who had been committed for trial for bringing counterfeit coin into the colony, had been allowed out on bail, and he did not appear to answer the charge.
The Attorney-General observed that he was calling this case on now because he had infor- mation given him that morning that the man who undertook to be security for the prisoner went to the Central Police Station on Sunday and reported that the man had run away. He understood that he wished to pay the amount of the bail. He would ask to have the bail
escheated and a bench warrant issued for the
prisoner's apprehension.
His Lordship-What was the amount of the
bail?
my
The Attorney-General-$500. Rather small,
Lord. His Lordship-Rather small for a serious" offence like that.
The Attorney-General-It occurred to me to be somewhat small. I shall communicate that to the Magistrate. If this man is connected with a gang who import bad money into the
|
The prisoner said that he was paying off some coolies near to where some men were gambling. On the constable coming up the gam- blers dispersed and the constable seized him and took him to the Police Station. It was not true that on the way he offered the constable money, The constable assaulted him and took the money from him.
The jury found the prisoner guilty on both counts, and his Lordship sentenced him to six
months with hard labour.
AN ABOMINABLE OFFENCE.
Charles Critchley and Lam Shing were charged with attempting to commit an abomin able offence. They pleaded not guilty,
The prors were: Messrs. W. Sohmids (fors- man), TH. Jewitt, J. C. Goodohild, J. $. Gub. bay. P. F. do Rozario, Paul Brewitt and John
Shelton.
The Foreman, after the jury had consulted for a minute or so, said that the jury found the prisoners guilty by five to two.
His Lordship said that in the case of a major- ity verdict it was necessary that a resonable time should be spent in considering it, and sug- gested that the jury should retire.
This the jury did, and on their rotara the Foreman announced that the jury found the prisoners guilty by six to one.
His Lordship sentenced the European to fire years' imprisonment and the Chinamay to four your's imprisonment.
March 21st. *
BEFORE HIS Honor A. G. Wise (PUISNE JUDGE).
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
PALMER AND TURNER V. BELILAOS. In this case Messrs. Palmer, architects, songbi to recover from the Hon. E. R. BelilionĮ C.M.G., the sam of $ 175, the balanes of fees for profon-
sional services.
Mr. M. W. Slade (instructed by Masara. Johnston, Stokes, and Master) appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr. J. J. Francis, "Q C), for the. defendant.
Mr. Slade said that at the end of 1897 and the beginning of 1898 the defendant employed