September 29, 1900.]
SUPREME COURT.
21st September.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADË REPORT.
do all she could do with safety to herself, and do all that any friends might suggest, to endea vour to get the goods back. What had been done was that, in a place like Hongkong, where every facility was within reach to obtain false tickets, and where hundreds of such tickets were BEFORE HIS HONOUR T SEECOMBE SMITH an exact imitation of the pawnbroker's ticket. in circulation, an attempt was made to present
(ACTING PUIsne Judge).
IN SUMMARY Jurisdiction.
THE CLAIM AGAINST A PAWN-SHOP.
The hearing of the case Ho To v. the Shing Wa Pawn-shop. 164. Wellington Street, was re- sumed. The plaintiff is a married woman resid. ing at No 20, Gough Street, and claimed $600 damages for alleged wrongful detention by the defendant of one case of gold leaf, three pairs of gold bangles alleged to have been pledged by the plaintiff with the defendant.
Mr. M. W. Slade (instructed by Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist) appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. J. J. Francis, Q.C. (instructed by Mr. | Ewens) for the defendant.
At the conclusion of the evidence Mr. Francis submitted that the entire question in the case for decision was on the examination of the two tickets, and with the pawnbroker's accounts. The facts, as far as the defence was concerned, were very simple. The goods in question had undoubtedly been pawned, an entry had been made in the pawn. broker's book, and a ticket had been issued at the time of pawning. With reference to the question arising as to the value, no evidence had been given. The defendants weighed the goods and estimated the value of them. The chain was described as an inferior gold chain, and on the ticket and in the books the weight was given as Tls. 7-3. This was probably a slip of some kind as the weight of the things pawn ed was Tls. 8-61. The defendants weighed the goods and the plaintiff was bound by that weight. The latter gave no evidence as to the value of the gold. He admitted that they were pure gold. The defendants valued them at $450, the plaintiff at $480. There was evidence on his side as to the weight and value; there was none on the other side. The goods were undoubtedly pawned, and there was no question as to the identity of them. Accord- ing to the evidence given on behalf of the plaintiff, it was his case that the ticket received
from the defendant was taken direct to the wo- man Ho To. The boy said he had read the con- tents of the ticket to her, and a man said he had done 30.
The ticket was put into her immediate possession. That was their case. In packing up Ho To had gone from house to house. She packed her things in one house first, and then packed what she had in another. It was ex- tremely probable that in her going to and fro in this manner, that she had lost or mislaid the pawnticket and that someone else got posses. sion of it and went on the 29th to redeem the goods. On the evidence, the only evidence that was really valuable for the purpose, that of the half-chop, there could be no reasonable doubt that the ticket presented was the one that had been issued. Whichever of the tickets was false, there was a likeness between them in all respects, and all the chief points might have been imitated. Reproduction was always possible, and there were a dozen methods of producing the marks on the ticket, and the blocks to produce them could always be túrned out. The one thing that could not be reproduced, and that they had no means of forging, was the other half of the chop, one half of the chop being put on the ticket, and the other half in the book. They could not be certain of the size of the half-chop in the book and therefore when forging the ticket, they could not be certain of the size of the chop to put on the ticket. As he understood, His Lordship had detected a difference in the characters on the two tickets. He said the only means a pawnbroker had of preventing a forgery was the identity of the two chops. In this case La pawnticket had been issued for valuable goods. The owner had admittedly lost the ticket. Somebody had found the ticket, and they were entitled to the goods as holding the proper ticket. Then there was the character of the parties who had told the tale. An extremely loose, state of relationship existed between the plaintiff and another. Loose connections of that kind often lead to loose connections in busi. pess transactions. The plaintiff would certainly
The pawnbroker's manager said that if a former employee of the firm wished, he would have no difficulty in obtaining a blank form just before he left, and then using it. The one difficulty would be to imitate the half of the chop to put on the ticket. Thers would be no trouble. in imitating the chop, as there would be scores in the hands of people in Hongkong. Mr. Slade had put in a ticket which his witness had admitted might belong to the shop. Or, if possible, the ticket might have passed for a valuable consideration into the hands of a third party, to whom it had been passed bona fide, but no question of that sort arose in the present case. There were no third parties interested here. It was a question of the honesty of the plaintiff, as it was a fact that she lost her ticket, and the goods were re- deemed in consequence of her own carelessness. While in Canton, she discovered the loss. The delay in Canton and the delay in writing about her loss had afforded plenty of time for the pre- paration of the false ticket, and to set anybody to work to prepare the chops for the purpose of manufacturing the ticket. But apart from the question of forgery, the question His Lordship had to decide was which of the two documents was genuine and which a forgery. On the face of it the ticket presented was the genuine ticket, bearing the pawnshop's chops and in the handwriting of the manager, and corresponding in all respects with the entry in the book. The ticket presented on the other side did not correspond as far as the chops were concerned with the entry in the book. It was entirely denied that it was in the handwriting of anyone in the shop. He submitted that there could be no question as to which was the genuine chop. If the plaintiff had lost her ticket and someone else presented it they were bound to deliver to that person, and they were protected by the Ordinance in delivering the goods.
241
The witness said leaves from the 22nd Jan- uary to the end of the book had been taken out. He subsequently altered that story. He said it had been done not at the Police Court as originally stated, but at his shop, and that only a few blank pages at the stories were absolutely contradictory. end of the book had been taken out. The two The other witness who was called, and who was pre- sent in the shop, absolutely denies that the book was unbound. That was, he said, a fair theory as to how the fraud might have been committed. He submitted that it had been done in one of the three ways, or perhaps in another way which ho was not able to suggest, and done by the pawnbroker or his servants. A ticket which does not bear the characters, but bearing the other correct details throughout is produced by the plaintiff and she did not know that the goods had been redeemed by the someone Ise. How was she to find out the exact details on the ticket? She swears. that she saw the ticket, some time in February. She had it in her possession. That being so it seemed impossible for her to have committed a for ory because she had not the requisite in- formation in her possession. In the letter, she made serious mistakes. If the thing had not been redeemed it was doubtful whether the pawnshop would have paid the money. He said if His Lordship would examine the book, the leaves were loose next to the entry respecting the case, and tight and close together elsewhere. He said that the book had been unbound. The bona fides of the plaintiff had been shown and the ticket which she had produced, and it was admitted that the goods were hers.
His Lordship in giving his decision said the main point in the decision was which of two tickets was the one issued by the broker to the person who brought the goods to pawn on the evening of the 27th of January. One ticket is produced by the plaintiff and the other by the pawnshop. The ticket that was produced by the plaintiff was handed to her on the evening of the 27th January, and was by her shown to Ho Yung Shan and was put in a small box in. side a larger box. The next day she went to Canton. While there she discovered the loss about Mr. Slade submitted that his friend had not the 16th of March. She searched vigorously accurately put the question which was to be till about the 18th and then she wrote a friend decided by His Lordship. The question was to inform the broker of her loss. Ho Yung which of the two documents was issued by the Shan communicated with a solicitor and he pawnshop to the plaintiff. If the ticket wrote to the pawn-broker, and the reply was which was issued was the one the plaintiff that the goods had been redeemed on the 29th produced in Court then, even if the ticket January. That reply was forwarded to the did not correspond with the books, it might plaintiff at Canton, and after receiving the re- be the proper ticket, and the one that the plain-ply, she found her pawnticket. The impression tiff was entitled to receive the goods on. made on his mind and the probable impression He said he could suggest three ways to account on a jury would be that it was a very curious for the difference between the ticket and the story. A person loses a ticket, writes to Hong- entry in the books. In the first place it might kong about it, and after she has received be a fraud on the part of someone in the employ notice that the goods have been redeemed she of the pawnshop. The witnesses brought up suddenly finds the ticket. His Lordship declared that the ticket passed through their did not say she had done wrong, as far as she hands only. There were several people there was concerned she found the ticket, or it might who had authority to write tickets, and he have been sent out to her in the letter. He was suggested that it was perfectly possible that not acousing her of fraud, but the story was someone could have made out a second ticket, suspicious. He pointed out that the way she substituted it for the genuine one, and kept the had discovered the ticket would probably weigh latter, innocently handing over the wrong ticket with a jury. With regard to the genuineness made out by someone behind his back together of the tickets, there was evidence on both with the money, to Chan A Kan. The pawn sides. The plaintiff produced a ticket she broker must suffer for the fraud practised by could not read, and did not know the contents his servants. In the previous case of handing of the ticket except by being told. The boy over the goods to the wrong party the shop identified the ticket by the order of the articles. suffered. There was another way to account and by a shade of colour, as does Ho Yuk Shan. for the ticket not corresponding. It came out The manager testified to the handwriting, also in the examination that the chops were not on the chop compared with his book. The ticket the book at the time of pawning. They produced by the plaintiff does not agree in this were put on after the writing was finished.
manner with his book. It appeared to him that According to the witnesses a stock of tickets is the evidence tendered on behalf of the pawn- kept. He suggested that the ticket that was broker was far weightier than that of the plain- issued had the wrong number on it. The ticket tiff. The latter is practically depending on issued really corresponded with some other en-
memory, and most of it could not be supported. try. The blank tickets were already chopped. Judgment was accordingly entered for the The wrong chop might have been put on the defendant, with costs. wrong ticket. The third explanation as to how the fraud might have been committed was as follows: The ticket that had been produced The Formosan authorities have decided to was the genuine one, the other was a forgery grant a subsidy to a sugar-refining company presented at the shop on the 29th, and paid just promoted by several well-known capitalists, in- as in the previous case the ticket was forged, cluding the Mori and Mitsui families. During and in order to make the forged ticket ap- the current fiscal year 12,000 yen will be con- parently genuine a new double page was writ-tributed to the concern, and in the next KERSİON ten up and inserted in the book. The book. of the Diets Bill will be introduced providing for as admitted by one of the witnesses. has been the granting of an annual subsidy of 30,000 yen
for live consecutive years. 'rebound, leaves taken out and inserted again. f