May 28, 1990.1
the girl stopped, and about the second moon of, last year they parted by mutual consent, and she would tell the jury that they had no quarrel. The prisoner went to a family house and the girl to a brothel, removing to another at 148, Third Street, in February of this year. The prisoner appeared to have gone there once or twice. He went there on the 10th April, two days before the throwing of this sulphuric acid. The prisoner asked the girl to go away with him, but she refused. He supposed she had enough knowledge of the world to know what going abroad meant. She knew that when she got to Singapore he would probably sell her to a brothel, put the money in his pocket and go away. On her refusing to go away with him the prisoner got very angry and advised her to be careful, saying that he would come next day to injure her. He did not come the next day, but at about half past eleven on the night of the 12th April, as she was entering the house, she saw the prisoner standing sideways in the doorway. He did not speak to her and she went upstairs. As she was going up, the prisoner threw some sulphuric soid after her, burning her about the neck and her clothing. She was taken to the hospital the next day, and remained there a week. On Inspector Baker searching the prisoner's room the next day he found a paper relating to the purchase of some sulphuric acid.
The evidence given at the Magistracy was repeated.
1
The prisoner made a long rambling statement as to his connection with the complainant, but denied throwing any fluid on to her. With regard to the document found in his room he said it belonged to a friend of his called Chun Yee, who left it there. He had not committed the crime alleged against him.
The prisoner was found guilty on both counts and sentenced to imprisoment for two years and six months with hard labour.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR T. SERCOMBE SMITH (ACTING PUISNE JUDGE).
CHINA OVERLAND, TRADE REPORT.ยทยท
in advance. The issues between the parties resolved themselves into the following, viz:- (1) Was the tenement, "Rosehhill," in whole or in part Goverment premises during the tenancies: aforesaid P
(2) Was "Rosehill" occupied or unoccupied during any time from 1st September, 1899 to 31st December, 1899 ?
(3) Was payment of rates made in advance within the meaning of section 34 of the Rating Ordinance?
The first issue may be put thus, Was the tene- ment rateable or not? The Colonial Treasurer in the 5th paragraph of his answer asserts that the tenement was rateable. One must first prove that a given tenement is Government premises and that it is not occupied in any way for gain or pecuniary profit: these two facts concerning the tenement having been proved, the tenement is not rateable. The proper and only method, however, of establishing these two facts was by following the procedure laid down in sections 15-22 of the Rating Ordinance. That procedure was not adopted, with the result that the petitioner cannot now be heard to say that the tenement is Government premises and not rateable. By section 4 of Ordinance 5 of 1892 it is enacted that after the time for appealing has expired certain percentages in the valua- tion of every tenement enumerated in the list shall be syable as rates. The tenemeat was accordingly liable to rates during the 2nd an 3rd quarters of 1899, and having been occupied during the quarters the Treasurer was right in refusing to refund such rates.
As rerds the second issue, viz..hether Rosehill as occupied or not at any period between 1st September and 31st December, 1899, I am of opinion that it was occupied from the 29th or 30th Septem or till the 31st December, 1899. By Section 1 (7) of the Ring Ordinance a tenement is considered unoccupied when it is put to no beneficial use, and a milding is con- sidered unoccupied when it is not used for hab- itation by anyone but a caretaker. A clark of Messrs Shewan, Tomes and Co. occupied the tene- ment from the end of September, 1899. till 3rd January, 1900. His family was with him he paid no rent. A distinct gain resulted to this His Lordship delivered judgment in this im- clerk; ho had the bonefi-ial use of the moment. portant case, which was heard on Wednesday. Or again the building was used for habitation His Lordship said:-In the matter of they the clerk and his family. His evidence was Rating Ordinance No. 14 of 1888, and in the as follows:- matter of the petition of Dora Delano Forbes by her Attorney Robert Gordon Shewan for a refund of rates in respect of the tenement" Rose- hill," Caine Road.
THE RATING APPEAL.
This is an adjudication upon a petition for a refund of rates presented by Dora Delano Forbes by her Attorney Robert Gordon Shewan in respect of the tenement known as Rosehill," Caine Road.
FA
By a lease dated 24th June, 1893, the upper floor of " Rosehill was let to Major Kelaart, R.A., acting as agent for the R.A. officers in Hongkong, for a year from 1st Nov. 1893.
By a lease dated 25th July, 1893, the lower floor of "Rosehill" was let to H.M.'s Principal Secretary of State for the War Department for A year from 1st Nov., 1893.
When the year named in these leases had expired both floors of the tenement continued to be rented by the original lessees or their successors, first upon a yearly, and subsequently ponu a monthly tenancy.
On the 31st August, 1899, the tenement in question was wholly vacated by the heretofore lessees. The petition alleges that the tenement also remained unoccupied for all the time from and after the 31st August, 1899, till the end of the year 1899, an allegation which the Col.
Treasurer denies.
Rates in respect of this tenement "Rosehill," were paid for the 2nd, 3rd and 14th quarters of 1899 on the 5th May, 2nd August and 11th November, 1899, these dates not being within the first month of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarters respectively. On 3rd February, 1900, the peti- tioner applied under form D in the schedule of the Rating Ordinance No. 15 of 1888 for a refund of rates for all four quarters of 1899. A refund of $327.60 claimed for the whole year was allowed on the 14th Feburary, 1899. The basis of this refund was G. N., No 340 of 28th August, published in the Goverment Gazette, 1895, at page 874, and the ground of the refusal to refund the rates for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarters was that such rates had not been paid
|
A gardener was there during September; he got wages. He stayed on after I went. I was not a caretaker. I did not go in to look after the premises. I went because I was in a fix as to a house. Mr. Tomes said, 'In the meantime you will take care of the house." I was not paid for looking after the house. This shows that he did not reside in "Rosehill" as a caretaker. Both the tenement and the building having been occupied from the end of September, 1199, till 31st December, 1199, no refund of rates paid for that period could be had. The con struction of the phrase, "Paid in advance Section 34 (1) of the Rating Ordinance, does not therefore arise for decision. As it may be doubtful whether the phrase means paid within the first month of such quarter, it would be well to have the point settled by fresh legislation.
*
201
in
861
by reason of what he had said or done, or omitt ed to say or do. Has the Colonial Treasurer worked any wrong to the petitioner by inducing him to do something? It is said that by omit- ting to give any other reason than the one he did give for not refunding the rates he induced the petitioner to present a petition asking for a refund of rates. Suppose the conduct of the Treasurer did induce such action: did he thereby work wrong to the petitioner? Did the peti tioner thereby suffer detriment? The mere voluntary bringing of a petition is not a wrong or detriment to the petitioner. The alleged estoppel does not exist, and the petition is dis- missed with costs.
A TEIAD SOCIETY. CASE.
Ho Shing, who was charged with being a member of an unlawful society, pleaded not guilty.
The jurors were Messrs, A. Muller, J. H. Faunch, J. Leonard, A. M. Philips, H. E. A. Hoile, A. F. Williamson and F. Melhinsh.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that as the jury were aware there were a good many secret societies in China, and the Legislature believing that they constituted a danger to the peace passed an Ordinance dealing with them, Among these societies was the Triad Society. of which the prisoner was charged with being a member. It appeared that a Chinese Sergeant of Police, from information received, went to the prisoner's house at Samshinpo on the 27th April and found the prisoner there. He took him into custoday, but before thon he saw the prisoner take a book out of his pocket and throw it away. The book was picked up and was found to relate to the Triad Society. The Ordinance provided that if any writings were found in the possession or under the control of any person he was presumed, unless he showed the contrary, to be a member of that society.
The evidence given at the Magistracy was repeated.
The prisoner called as a witness a Chinaman connected with the Basil Mission. This man said that on hearing it stated that the prisoner was a member of a Triad Society he made en- quiries, because if he was satisfied that the pri soner belonged to such a society he would not be allowed to remain a member of the mission and to take the sacrament as he had previously done. He, however, could not discover that the charge against the prisoner was true.
In answer to the Attorney-General, witness said that if the prisoner was convicted he would be expelled from the mission.
The prisoner made a long statement, deny. ing that he was a member of the Triad Society and stating that he was a Christian.
The jury were unanimously of opinion that the prisoner was not guilty, and he was ac- cordingly discharged.
May 19th.
CRIMINAL SESSIONS.
BBFORE HIS HONOUR SIR JOHN CARRINGTON,
Kr., C.M.G. (CHIEF JUSTICE).
THE ARMED ROBBERY AT SHAUKIWAN. Wong San Ming, Ho Yeung, and Tam Chun were charged with committing an armed robbery at Shaukiwan. They pleaded not guilty.
The jurors were Messrs. H. Varrelmann, David Haskell, Richard Hamilton, H. E. Krol, W. O. C. Spalckhaver, B. C. M. Johnston, and K. E. P. Herbst.
One other point arises for decision, viz., whe- ther the Colonial Treasurer was estopped by his conduct from alleging in his answer any other reason than that alleged in his letter of 25th March, 1900, viz., failure of payment of rates in advance as a reason for refusing to re- fund the rates. If he was so estopped, the Colonial Treasurer could not have raised the The Attorney-General (the Hon. W. Meigh defence that "Rosehill was rateable or not oc- Goodman) said the complainant in this case was cupied by the Imperial Government or, in other a house boy at Quarry Bay Sugar Refinery resid words, not Government premisses, or was ooou- ing in a private house at 24, Shui Chin Wan, pied from end of September to 31st December, just beyond Quarry Bay. Shortly before the 1199. An estoppel by conduct may arise from 26th April, when this robbery occurred, the agreement, misrepresentation or negilgence. complainant received the sum of $500 from his The Colonial Treasurer entered into no agree-brother in America, and he had also the sum of ment, made no misrepresentation and has not been negligent. The case of Ex parte Adamson, In re Collie 8 A.C. 807 was cited for the peti- tioner on the point and the words of James, C.J. at page 817 were quoted as follow:
'Nobody ought to be estopped from av- erring truth or asserting a just demand un- less by his acts or words or neglect his now averring the truth or asserting the demand would work some wrong to some other person who has been induced to do some- thing, or to abstain from doing something,
$75 in the house. He could not help thinking that some smart thief was at the bottom of this affair that someone came to the con- clusion that the complainant had a lot of money in his house and that it would be a good thing to steal it. This case showed the advan- tage of the telephone, and he thought the man- ner in which the men were captured was very creditable to the police. At the time of the robbery-between 12 and half-past at midnight on the 26th April-there were in the house on the first floor the complainant and his wife and