April 27, 1901.]
The
first two are worse than the third. sentence of this Court upon the first and second prisoners is that they suffer six years' imprison- ment, and as to the third prisoner, that he suffer five years and a half's imprisonment with hard labour. The sentences will run after those you are now undergoing.
Saturday, 20th April.
IN CRIMINAL SESSIONS,
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR JOHN CARRING- TON, C.M.G. (CHILF JUSTICE).
AN INGENIOUS FRAUD.
Ching Kee was placed in the dock charged with obtaining goods by false pretences on 30th and 31st March last.
He pleaded not guilty.
Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C. (instructed by Mr. Bowley, the Crown Solicitor) prosecuted, and the prisoner was undefended.
The following jury were empannelled Messrs. William R. Allison, 8. C. de Rosario, John Millar, A. L. da Silva, J. P.M. Smith, C. E. Pearce, and Abdool Hussein Abdool Rahim.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE KEPORT.
(b) that the plaintiff was to have a lease of the premises at No. 12, Queen's Road Central, then occupied by the plaintiff in his business of H. Price and Company for a term of three years from 1st July, 1900, at the monthly rental of $300 free of taxes; and
359
prove the want of reasonable and probable cause, and with regard to malice he would call witnesses.
The plaintiff was called, and bore the opening statement of his solicitor. In cross examination he said that he was ont of em (c) that the defendant as landlord should ployment at present, but
engaged at pay the sum of $60 in respect of any limewash- his trade could earn about 880 a month. The ing and painting which should thereafter be circumstances under which the trouble arose executed upon the said premises at No. 12, were in respect of some beams
and Queen's Road Central, but any expenditure used in the erection of a theatre, and the feud for limewashing and repairing, &c., beyond the had been going on for some years. It culmi- sum should be paid by the plaintiff as tenant? nated in the quarrel of February last, when 2. If it was agreed as in (a) and (b) did these | the police were called in. and Lam Hon was agreements constitute one common and con- given into custody on an alleged charge of nected agreement, or were they separate and theft. independent agreements?
3. If question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative, did Shan Shang have authority to enter into the agreement on behalf of the defendant?
4. If so, has the plaintiff expended money upon the faith of the said agreement with
(I) the knowledge of the defendant (II) the knowledge aud consent of the defen- dant
(a.) In levelling and cometing the floor of the said godown, and
-(d.) in extending the electric light in the said premises at No. 12, Queen's Road Central? Upon these issues the jury found the follow- ing verdict.
For the plaintiff unanimously upon the first question a, b and e;
•
For the plaintiff unanimously on the se- cond question.
*L
|
2
Sergeant Lamont, of the An Yan station, who had been deputed to enquire into the circum- stances attending the alleged robbery, said it was doubtful such an occurrence should have taken place without anyone seeing it.
•
The defendant was called, and stated that he was proceeding homeward on the night of the alleged assault and was carrying a lantern. Some men sprang out of a bush by the side of the road and struck at him. The plaintiff was one of them. He subsequently made a Counsel for the prosecution in opening the
report at the station. The sergeant sont proceedings said that on March 20th last Ching (b.) upon the colour washing and painting two Chinese constables to the spot, but Kee went to the store of Messrs. Ritchie & Co., of the said premises, No. 12, Queen's Road nothing could be found. No trace of the shipchandlers, and ordered some provisions. He Central, and
robbery could be seen, and he went about said he was the interpreter on board the French (c) in altering and enlarging the said pre-his business in the usual way. A few days warship Amaral Charner, and he would call themises at No. 12, Queen's Road Central, and afterwards he came across the plaintiff and next day and take away the goods. The next
gave him into custody. He was sure Lam Hon morning he again made his appearance, and
was one of the men who sprang out of the busli after ordering some more goods told the
and robbed him. He had known him almost assistant to have them ready by the after-
from childhood, but it was not true that he noon. The goods were accordingly made up
(witness) had a grudge against him because of a in parcels and subsequently placed on board a
quarrel concerning a matshed in which, the sampan. A bill was made out which the pri
police interfered, and his uncle had to pay $4.60 soner said he would pay for immediately, and
to clear the matter up. Mr. Encarnacio went with him in a steam launch with the goods in the sampan in tow. They reached the centre of the harbour, looked round, and then searched both the Kowloon and the Hongkong shores, but could not find the warship. Prisoner then said that probably she had gone to Canton. Mr. Encarnacio then resumed possession of the goods, and told the prisoner that he could not have them unless he could get a guarantee. The next day the prisoner want to the shop bringing with him another man whom he representated to be the owner of the Chan Man Sing shop and who signed a guarantee for payment. The goods were delivered, but it subsequently turn. ed out that the guarantee was bad, and the prisoner was arrested. The goods comprised 15 cases condensed milk, 10 cases of sardines, 5 cases of salmon and 15 cases of lager beer, 10 piculs of coffee, 20 cases of butter, 10 boxes of BEFORE HIS HONOUR A. G. WISE (PUISNE would be judgment for the defendant, with cigars, and 10 cases of assorted jams.
Evidence in support of counsel's statement having been given, his Lordship summed up and the jury returned a verdict of guilty.
His Lordship passed sentence of twelve months' hard labour.
Monday, 22nd April
IN ORIGINAL JurisdicTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR John CarrING- TON, C.M.G. (CHIEF JUSTICE)
H. PRICE AND CO. V. LUM SUT SANG. His Lordship delivered judgment in this suit, which was instituted to obtain a decree of the Court compelling the defendant to grant a lease of the shop No. 12, Queen's Road Central, and an adjacent godown.
Mr. H. E. Pollock K.C. (instructed by Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Francis, K.Ü. (in- structed by Messrs. Mounsey and Brutton) re- presented the defendants.
The suit was heard on the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th March, when the judge on the conclusion of the plaintiff's and defendant's case submitted certain issues to the jury. They were:-
1. Did Shan Shang in the early part of the year 1900, make an agreement on behalf of the defendant with the plaintiff whereby it was
reed
** (a) that the plaintiff was to have a lease of a godown at No. 10, Queen's Road Central, from the 1st May, 1900, to 28th February, 1902, at a monthly rental of $50 free of taxes; and
For the plaintiff on questions No. 3 und 4 by 6 to 1."
Upon that verdict on 28th March both parties came into court and claimed judgment, and after long arguments by counsel judgment was reserved.
His Lordship now set aside the finding of the jury with regard to issue 4 (a), but directed the verdict to stand on all other issues.
Judgment was therefore entered for the plaintiff in accordance with the finding of the jury, and costs of suit, but an abatement of $100 was to be allowed the defendant on issue 4 (a) upon which the jury had given a wrong finding.
Tuesday, 23rd April.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
JUDGE).
DAMAGES FOE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.
His Honour was engaged in hearing the suit of Lam Hon v. Choy Cheung. It was brought by the plaintiff, Lam Hon, a contractor, resid- ing at Lam Ok, in the Wong Chau village, New Territory, against the defendant, who was also a contractor, residing at 45, Pottinger Street, claiming the sum of $500 damages for malicious prosecution.
Mr. Grist (Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Hays (Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master) repre- santed the defendant.
Mr. Grist, in opening, read the pleadings, and said that his client was arrested on 12th March last, and kept in custody till the 18th, when he was admitted to bail in the sum of $50. The charge against him was that of theft, and it was alleged that he had stolen a quantity of jewelry and other articles to the value of $450. The plaintiff was brought before Mr. Hazeland on 22nd March when the evidence in support of the charge was gone into and the magistrate dismissed the case, and released him from custody. Roscoes Nini-Prius Evidence Inid down that in an action for malicious prose. cution, the plaintiff might, by proper defences, be put to the proof, (1) the prosecution of the plaintiff; (2) its determination; (3) that the de- fendant was the prosecutor; (4) his malice and want of probable cause and (5) the damage sustained. Everything in the action was ad- mitted except probable cause, malice, and, da- mages. He (Mr. Grist) proposed to put in the depositions taken at the police court to
In cross-examination the witness said he identified four out of the nine who assaulted him, and was positive that the plaintiff was one. of them.
Mr. Grist submitted that the case was one of the strongest which had ever been before the court for malicious prosecution. These cases were always difficult to establish, but, he submitted, in the present one, the proof had been most conclusively shown, and he asked for a verdict.
His Honour replied that the onus of proof of the want of reasonable and probable cause was on the plaintiff, and he did not think it had been shown. He did not think there had been malice, and he could not hold there was no robbery. There might have baan a bona fide mistake, and as a reasonable doubt existed he must give the defendant the benefit of it. There
costs on the amount claimed.
THE VITRIOL OUTRAGE,
Before Mr. Hazeland at the Magistracy on the 25th inst., George Allen, storehouseman at the Naval Yard, residing at Sea View, Wanchri, who was arrested on Wednesday, 24th inst., by Inspec tor Cuthbert, of the detective staff, was brought up on remand from the 25th inst. and charged "that he, the said George Allen, on 17th Jann- ary, 1901, and on divers subsequent dates, at Victoria, in this colony, feloniously did aid, abet, counsel, and procure one Yeùng Kun to throw a certain destructive substance upon one George Reek, which destructive substance was in fact thrown upon the said George Reek on 14th March, 1901, and by which the said George Reek did suffer grievous bodily harm." The prosecution was conducted by Captain Superintendent May.
The defendant, who pleaded not guilty was represented by Mr. J. Hastings,
Keung Kun, the first witness examined, said-I am at present undergoing a term of three years' hard labour for procuring onet Lo Tsai to throw vitriol upon one George Reek. I was convicted at the last Criminal Sessions. Before I went to gool I was employed at the Naval Yard. I know the defendant; he is employed at the Dockyard in charge of a store, and has been for ten years. I was employed in that store. On the 15th of February the defendant asked me to get a man to strike Mr. Reek, and I promised to do so. He said the man who did it would get 310.