74
1890 the plaintiff offered to re-sell him the business for $1,200, but the offer was made in a joke,
Inspector Collett deposed to a conversation he had had with Gibson in August or September of last year, when, in reply to a question by witness as to whether he was speculating, Gibson said the business was run by Ramsey, but that three parts of it was owned by him (Gibson),
Charles Mooney, secretary to the Hongkong Hotel Company, produced receipts to show that the stall in the Hongkong Hotel corridor was rented for the Acetylene Lamp Syndicate by Gibson. The stall was hired for the ex- hibition of acetylene lamps, but during Gibson's absence in England some bicycles were also exhibited. The stall was rented from 1st May, 1899, till 30th June, 1900. Gibson paid the rent when he was in the colony, but during his absence in England Mr. Ramsay and some- times Mrs. Ramsay paid it.
Emerson Fitzgerald Gibson, defendant, was called. He said the Acetylene Lamp Company was wound up principally because of the heavy cost of the freightage of carbide, one of the compounds used in the manufacture of acetylene gas, and one which, from its highly explosive nature, could only be handled with safety by a person understanding its properties.
Mr. J. J. Francis, K.C., cross-examined de- fendant at length, and the further hearing was then adjourned.
Tuesday, 16th July.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
Is that solely connected with the repairs to your own bicycle ?
Defendant-Yes.
56
Mr. Francis-And who are the people- find we have no one-inch tubing?" To whom does "we" refer ?
Defendant - I was in partnership then with young Mr. Lysaught
Mr. Francis-And the “we” re ́erred to there is yourself and young Mr. Lyaught?
Defendant-Yes.
Coming to the matter of the assistance he had given Mrs. Ramsey in looking after the cycle business during her husband's absence from the colony, defendant said it consisted only of advice, and he had never anything to do with the actual conduct of the business. De fendant knew a Gardner Williams in Swatow, but he had never offered to sell him his shares in Ramsey & Company. Neither had one Mallory, in Hongkong, offered to buy those shares. Defendant did not put 82,000 in the business of Ramsey & Company, and Ram- sey had not offered to buy him out. Further than that, the defendant had had no legal transactions with Ramsey & Company through Messrs. Deacon & Hastings, solicitors, during the past twelve months.
Re-examined by Mr. Robinson, defendant said Gardner Williams was chief clerk to Messrs. Butterfield & Swire in Swatow. With regard to the stall in the Hongkong Hotel, defendant Was positive that the Acetylene Lamp Company did not deal in bicycles during the time he was in the colony, previous to his departure for England.
Before leaving the box, the defendant, address
goods ordered for the Acetylene Lamp Com- pany by Mr. Ramsey, said-In justice to myself and to protect my character, I wish to explain that the cheque payable for those goods was signed by the partners in the firm as well as by myself.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR A. G. WISE (ACTING ing his Lordship on the matter of the bicycle
CHIEF JUSTICE).
COLLINS v. GIBSON.
The hearing of evidence was resumed. Mr. Francis continued his cross-examination of Mr. Gibson, the defendant. The Acetylene Lamp Company on one occasion did deal in bicycles-in April, 1899, before the defendant went home. The order for the goods was given by Mr. A. F. Ramsey, but was not contained in the firm's letter-book, the page being missing from the book. Mr. Ramsey paid by instalment for the goods, but defendant could not remem-
ber whether by cheque or otherwise, nor whether Mr. Ramsey received a receipt for the money.
That money did not go into the defendant's pocket, but was credited to the Acetylene Com pany. The order for the bicycles was given, de- fendant thought, either in May or June, 1899,
A shipping order was produced showing that the goods were shipped from America on 19th April, 1899.
Mr. Francis-On 19th April. Then why are you looking in the books for May and June for an order shipped on 19th April?
Defendant-I was not sure when the order was given, but I thought it was in the spring of 1899.
Mr. Francis-Because you told a lie--that is the reason.
Defendant-I told no lie. I looked through the books because you told me.
Continuing, the defendant said he knew a man named Livingstone, & former schoolmaster. but had never had any communication with him on behalf of Ramsey & Company. Living- stone was in partnership in a bicycle business with one McKirdy down in Wanchai, and defendant on one occasion took his bicycle to him to be repaired.
Mr. Francis-Was that the only transaction you had with Livingstone P
Defendant-Yes.
Mr. Francis-You never wrote him a letter? Defendant-No.
The next witness was Mrs. Ramsey, who was afterwards cross-examined by Mr. Francis. The reason the name of the cycle business owned by her husband was changed from A. F. Ramsey to A. F. Ramsey & Com pany because the latter designation Bounded better. Witness's husband
was
[July 20, 1901.
A plea of not guilty was tendered by the défendant.
The following jury was empanelled : Messrs. ID. P. J. Lopes, F. X. do Rosario, F. Groning, F. G. Chunnett, W. 8. Bailey, J. I. Andrew, and R. Packham.
|
The Acting Attorney-General, in detailing the circumstances of the case, mid that on the 10th May the prosecutor, a flower gardener out of employment, went to the Sui Kie opium divan, situated in a side lane off Queen's Road West. After smoking some opium he left the divan and went out into the lane. Here he met two men, one of whom ran up and put his arm round the prosecutor, while the other man, who was known to the prosecutor by sight and who was the prisoner in the dock, put his hand into the prosecutor's pocket and pulled ont a package containing $5.20. The prosecutor tried to snatch the package from the prisoner, whom he caught by the queue. The prisoner thereupon stabbed the prosecutor in the hip, inflicting a rather serious injury. The prosecutor fell to the ground, and his two assailants ran away, Recovering slightly, the injured man got into a ricksha and drove to No. 7 Police Station, where he made a report. The evidence of the opium divan kooper would show that the prisoner and the other man were in the divan on the same night as the prosecutor, and that they left together. The story told by the prisoner at the Police Court in answer to the charge was that he and the prosecutor used to go out together "to make money.' On the night in question the prisoner alleged that the prosecutor quarrelled with him in the opium divan about some money. They went down into the street together, and the prosecutor then asked the prisoner for two dollars. The prisoner had no money, and, according to his story,
was there and then assaulted by the prosecutor. The prisoner picked up a piece of wood to defeud himself, and struck the prosecutor with it, not knowing there was a nail in the wood.
Evidence was then led. Dr. Bell's statement was to the effect that the wound on the prosecutor's hip was a jagged one four inches deep and from a half to three-quarters of an inch broad at the surface. The wound had been inflicted by a sharp instrument like a penknife.
The prisoner's defence was similar to that
was the company. The capital of 82,000 was obtained partly in loans and partly by what which he made at the Police Court. The pro- Mr. Ramsey himself had in the way of savings.secutor was a thief, and had tried to get him to The remainder of the capital was made up in steal. When he struck the prosecutor he did
not know there was a nail in the wood.
stock.
Mr. H. Haynes, manager of the Hongkong Hotel, gave evidence relative to the letting of the stall in the corridor of the hotel to the Acetylene Light Company.
Mr. Robinson asked his Lordship to adjourn the case to permit of the attendance of Mr. Ramsey when his ship arrived. Dr. Hartigan, Mr. Robinson said, had also been subpened.
The hearing was adjourned sine die.
Thursday, 19th July.
IN CRIMINAL JurisdictION,
BEFORE HIS HONOUR A. G. WISE (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE).
The jury retired to consider their verdict, and returned after an absence of five minutes. The foreman said they had found the prisoner not guilty on the first count and guilty on the second, adding a rider to the effect that he had acted under provocation, and did not mean to inflict such a severe injury.
In passing sentence of four months' hard labour, his Lordship said it was known that there were previous convictions against the prisoner, but that the Attorney-General did not desire to press these. The fact of their existence was mentioned just to show the prisoner that he was known.
KOBBERY.
Li Shing pleaded not guilty to a charge of robbery by one or more persons at Kwai Chung There were only three cases on the calendar—on the 7th ult., when four men entered a matshed and stole money and property belong- Lo Shing, robbery by two or more persons; Lo Yew Hoi alias Tai Li, uttering a forged ing to one Ching Yan, whom they assaulted. will; Ho Kwai, (1) robbing and wounding; (2), wounding.
SPECIAL SESSIONS TO BE HELD.
The Hon. H. E. Pollock, K.C., Acting Attorney-General, before the commencement of the Sessions, asked his Lordship to fix a day for the hearing of two cases pending at the Police Mr. Francis-Just look at that photo of this Court under the Forgery Ordinance. One of writing, and tell us if it is y. urs.
the witnesses was a man holding an official Defendant (after examining the writing)-position in the Namtao district of China. He Yes, that's mine.
Mr. Francis-Then why did you say you never wrote to him? I suppose you thought we didn't have that photo?
Defendant-I did not think anything about it. Mr. Francis--Just listen whilst I read the letter:-"Dear Livingstone-I find we have no one-inch tubing, only one-and-a-half, and of two sizes, namely, 20 inches and 21 inches, so try and do the best you can with that. I will try and call round on Monday and see how you are getting along. Yours truly, E. F. GIBSON."
was now in the colony, and if he went away it would be difficult to get him down here again, as he would be outside the jurisdiction of the Court.
His Lordship fixed Monday for the Special Sessions, subject to the cases on the calendar being finished.
ROBBING AND WOUNDING.
Ho Kwai was charged (1) with wounding one Lau On on the 10th May and robbing him of $5-20, and (2) with wounding Lan On on the same date.
|
|
The jury was the same as that in the previous
case.
The Acting Attorney-General said the pro- secutor was the master of a grocer's shop at Kwai Chung, near Laichikok. On the 7th June, in the early morning, he was awakened by a knocking at the door, which, on being opened by the prosecutor, disclosed four men standing outside. One of the men covered the prosecutor's eyes with his hands, and another put sand into his month. Sand was also rubbed on the prosecutors' eyes; he was then blindfolded and bound to the bed. After a time he succeeded in getting the bandage partly from his eyes and saw the four men plundering the matshed. They stole money and clothing to the value of between fourteen and fifteen dollars, and made off in their boat. The prosecutor's shouts at- tracted the notice of a neighbour, who released him from his bonds. The prosecutor then got into a fishing junk and made his way to Yau- mati, where he reported the robbery to Con
1