192
Tuesday, 27th August.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR A. G. W188
(ACTING CHIEF Justice).
LUK LAI CHO v. KINGHORN AND MACDONALD. His Lordship gave his decision on the point of law for the consideration of which the Court was adjourned on the previous day. This was the admissibility or otherwise of parallel eridénca tha is, oral evidence to interpret a written document.
His Lordship said the point he had to decide arose out of the second paragraph of the defendants' answer, in which was mentioned, in the following terms, a note handed by the defendant to the plaintiff :-"We are now in a position to accept your offer definitely for the purchase of Kowloon Marine Lot No. 39, for the sum of 3325,0 0 net, and will not enter into further negotiations with any one." After reading the whole of the paragraph and quoting authorities, His Lordship said he could not get over the words "now in a position," which to his mind implied the surmounting of difficulties that have previously existed. He therefore
refused to admit tho evidence.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
If they are situated in a place not within the town limit as it was in 1844, the date when the Ordinance came into force, this does not affect the construction of the Ordinance. If boiler- makers or others make noises to the anoyance of persons, between sunrise or sunset, they friend might contend the noise complained of His learned was a necessary noise but he would submit it was not. It was not necessary to ent a ship's plate at night, or to work all night to the annoyance of the good people of Hongkong. Again, his learned friend might claim that the defendant's works are not within the limit of the town. He would say they were. When is built to extend beyond the original limit, a city expand», and a continuous row of houses the limit also naturally expands. There is a continuous row of houses from the Clock Tower to Jardine's Bazaar, there are no long open spaces which could constitute a break: there. fore all that part is within the limit of the town. Morrison Hill and Bowrington are therefore within the limits of the town.
come within the Ordinance.
{
Counsel for prosecution here quoted several Ordinances of 1888. In conclusion, the Crown Solicitor maintained that common-sense and
[August 31, 1901.
REVIEW.
The Siege of the Peking Legit ions._By_the Rev. ROLAND ALLEN, M.A. London: Smith, Elder & Co. ALTHOUGH this book, in spite of its title, is the siege of the Foreign Legations in Peking," not claimed by the author to be “a history of it is nevertheless an interesting and painstaking record of the general courte of the siege taken in the main from the diary which the Rev. R. Allen kept during the siege. The result is a picturesquely written volume. There is ein gularly ittle of such language as the ordinary
sentiments which may be grateful to the readers might fear to find in a missionary's book, for the writer has wisely recognised that the
to the general public, who are averse to too of a missionary magasine are not so scceptable much edification. But Mr. Allen speaks up in no hesitating manner for the native Uhristians, as in the following passage, when he also refers to the neglect by the Powers' representatives in Peking of certain sources of information:
One could not but be struck throughout the whole of the earlier troubles in Peking to with the strange failure of the Ministers for procuring information either of actual any regular and efficient meana facts or of the state of feeling in the different parts of the city, or of the probable to say that many missionaries and laymen in course of events. It would scarcely be untrue
forlade due weight being given to their testi- tions; and yet the tradition of the Legations the city were better informed than the Lega-
1180
authority both tended to show that Bowringtou, was included in the town limit. Then again, Mr. Francis-In consequence of your even if not included in the limits of the town, Lordship's decision, which practically amounts if only so within the vicinity and distance that to judgment for the plaintiff, I should like to ask the noises can annoy, it comes under the mean. that, in view of a possible appeal, your Lording of the Ordinance. The only case previously ship will permit all the written correspondence was decided by Mr. Has ings, in 1896, where a to be put in, to form a basis for argument on brick fell on the appeal. If we go to the Court of Appeal, the Peak Hotel, the question arose, was the a gentleman while in bed at it is best to know exactly what evidence we propose to put in.
friend, who defended at the time, won the decimony when offered, and still leas was direct sion on the plea with which Mr. Hastings limit of the town, as a long stretch of open green was between the Peak and the city. In this case, of course, it was different, and that contention would not hold good.
Mr. Pollock had no objection to all the documents going in.
His Lordship-Under these circumstances judgment will be for the plaintiff, with costs, reference as to damages to be made to the Registrar.
On the application of Mr. Francis, the ques tion of damages was allowed to stand over till the end of the October Sessions.
The Court then adjourned eine die.
MAKING UNNECESSARY NOISES.
Before Mr. Hazeland on the 26th inst., Mr. Master, of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master, prosecuted the Manager of the Fuk Cheong Engineering Works at Bowrington, for disturbing him and others at nights by the noise caused by boiler-making in defendant's works.
Mr. Bowley, Crown Solicitor, appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Grist for the defence.
Mr. Master was the first witness called, and stated that he was kept awake the whole of night of the 21st inst.
Mr. Howell, bailiff, Supreme Court, the second witness, said practically the same thing.
Mr. Master recalled, pointed out on a Directory map the position where his house stood. He said he believed his house was registered in Victoria. Mr. Grist declared that he did not propose to call any witnesses, and would leave his friend
the Crown Solicitor to address His Worship.
Mr. Bowley rising to address the Court said he did not know what line of defence his friend would take, except that the place where the noise made was not within the limit of the
town. He took it, however, that it did not
matter where the uoise was made, as long as the people who were disturbed thereby were within
4.
the limits of the town. His friend might, claim that the Ordinance was merely intended to do away with noises which were made by the watch- men at night, fifty years ago to show that they were vigilant. (Reading preamble to Ordinance). But one could certainly not limit the scope of the Ordinance by its preamble, nor was the Ordinance intended to be so limited. The heading of the Ordinance clearly shows that, as it reads, “for the better securing of peace to th ...ants of the town of Victoria." Moreover, another passage in the Ordinance plainly says: No person or persons whatsoever," are permitted to make unnecessary noises between sun. set and sunrise. A preamble, continued Mr. Bowley, is only useful to clear up some ambiguity of the effective part of the Ordinance (quoting some examples). Legislation states no person shall be annoyed, and no boiler maker allowed within the limits of the town.
|
Peak within the limit of the town. His learned
concurred, that the Peak was not within the
Mr. Grist in reply, quoting from the Or. dinance in question, said it prohibited unneces sary noises, in Victoria, or annoyance to people in the vicinity of Victoria Ho maintained that there had been no evidence shown to prove that the noise complained of had been unneces
The fact of the matter was, it was a most necessary noise. His client had contracted to repair a ship in a certain time-
sary.
1
Mr. Bowley-I object Your orship to any evidence being brought in, or I shall take the privilege of replying.
Mr. Grist-I have a right to show the noise was necessary and you have no right to reply. except on behalf of the Crown. As I said, Your Worship, the prosecution has failed to prove the noise was not necessary.
was a necessary one,
it came to pass that the Ministers seemed to display an almost cruel disregard for the massacre or sufferings of native Christians, and left to the generosity and ability of men who one of the chief elements in our salvation was had no official connection with the Legations.
evidence from Chinese sources admitted. Thus
We shall not follow Mr. Allen Into the well the points with which we are already details of the siege. His narrative brings out
the steadfastness of the besieged, the straits to familiar, but which bear being heard again--
blunders and panics, the general cheerfulness, which they were reduced, the occasional the treachery of the Chinese authorities, the now and then pressed with tremendous vigour. curious variety in the character of the attack, but usually more ostentatious than actually dangerous. All these and other features of the Nor is he destitute of the sense of humour. memorable siege Mr. Allen tells with fidelity. Ho appreciates the literary qualities of the writings of M. Pichon, the French Minister. On the morning of the day when the relief column actually arrived, the besieged were busy speculating on the hour at which the Allies would get in and listening to the sounds of battle outside. Some went up on the city wall to watch the shelling of the_gates. M. Pichon, says Mr. Allen, who did so, has written a little prose lyric in his usus! picturesque style on the beauty of the scene:---
Le soleil d'est levé danà un ciel d'asur.
Mr. Bowley-If evidence is going to be put in, let defendant be put in the witness box, so that I may cross-examine him.
Mr. Grist-I need not prove the noise the prosecution must prove it was unnecessary. The Ordinance alluded to only applied to the City of Victoria it
in 1844. was
There is nothing to show what were the limits of the City at that time. And he (Mr. Grist) woud submit that it was quite necessary to prove that atmosphère est d'une eclatante limpiditė. the persons annoyed resided within the limits L'horizon se degage à perte de vue, on apercoit la ligne bleue des collines qui se détachént eur of the town as it
was then. As for his learned friend's contention about the expansion. Pichon was the only man on the wall who un fond clair et doré, and so on. Probably of the city limits by a continued row of houses, let them take Bristol or London. The limits of the City of London have never yet been en- larged. They are still the same as formerly, though the City has expanded all round.
Mr. Bowley-This Ordinance applies to town not city.
|
had an eye for the beautiful suficiently keen to notice the appearance of the western hills when the allied forces were coming to our
resone in the cast.
The copy of this interesting volume before us was sent to us by Mesars. Kelly & Walsh.
Mr. Grist continuing said: What is generally understood by town? It usually means a place Admiral Richelieu, head of the Siamone that has shops, where varions necessaries can be Navy, tendered his "resignation the bought, now, from the Clock Tower to Morrison 9th inst., and will retire on pension. Admirul Hill there certainly is not a line of shops. Main. Richelien had a most prosperous career. Years | taining that the prosecution made out no case ago he came to Blam as the second mate of a whatever, he would ask His Worship to dismiss | miling barque, He left his ship in Bangkok the summons
and joined the Siamese Navy, rising rapidly His Worship in summing up held that com- | (not a dimonit matter in those days) until he plainant s residence and defendant's works were occupied the chief post in the Navy. He is a within the town limit (quoting from Maxwell's | great_favourite of the prosent king, as_WES Interpretations of Statute), as for the noise, he proved, when in spite of the fact of having been did not think it was necessary for the prosecu accused by his enemies of having left his flag- tion to prove the noise an unnecessary one ship at a most critical moment, when the (quoting from preamble of the Ordinance). His French miled up the river in 1888, he still would therefore impose a fine of $10 on defendant. retained his post."