486
His Lordship asked them to consider what it was all for. The costs were $5,000 now, and they would undoubtedly become $10,000. And all this was to be incurred to settle axactly how much this gentleman had to pay for some granite. The claim as originally made was an enormous claim made under a misapprehension. After consultation between the clients and their respective counsel,
Mr. Slade intimated that his client had left the matter in his hands to accept the suggestion put forward by his Lordship.
Mr. Sharp stated that the only terms his client would agree to were judgment for nominal damages in the amount mentioned and costs to the amount of $2,000 of The $3,000 which he had expended.
Ms. Slade expre-sed regret that he could not agree to these terms.
His Lordship said that then there was nothing for it but to proceed with the evidence.
At a later stage his Lordship again advised a settlement, and after much consultati n aud debate the plaintiff agreed to accept $1,500 in lieu of damages and costs.
The Court adjourned.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR A. C. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE).
SEQUEL TO A COLLAPSE.
J. Coleman Hughes, his wife Agneta Eliza Hugkes, and Charles Lena May claimed from William Chatham, Water Authority, and A. H. Hollingsworth, Assistant Water Authority, a sum of $1,000, being damages sustained by them by reason of the opening, and keeping open by the defendants of a trench in the road at the back of No. 1, Lower Albany in so negligent a manner as to allow a body of water to collect and percola e through the adjoining soil and caused the collapse of a por- tion of the plaintiff's retaining wall. Mr. H. W/Looker, solicitor, appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. F. B. L. Bowley, Crown Solicitor, for the defendants.
The statement of claim showed that J. Coleman Hughes resides at Glenealy, Woking, Surrey. The other plaintiffs are his wife and C. L. May, Corfe House, Erst Molesey, Surrey. Plaintiffs are the orners of No. 1 Lower Albany, Hongkong. At the back of this ruas Robinson Road which is at a level of about 21 feet higher than the ground on which the house 8'ands and is supported by a retaining wall belonging to the plaintiffs. In March and April last the defendant W. Chatham as Water Authority opened a triangular-shaped trench in Robinson Road (which is Crown property) immediately behind the house mentioned, for the purpose of making repairs, etc., to certain water mains laid under the road. These operations were personally superintended by Mr Hollingsworth. This trench, which was particularly liable to become filled with water if a storm ocurred owing to its po ition, was negligently allowed by the defend nfs to remain open for a far longer time than was required to carry out the repairs. It remained open into the rainy season and when this began the trench became filled with water which was allowed to remain there for several days, with the result that, having no outlet provided for it, it gradually percolated through the adjoining soil in the direction of the re- taining wall and penetrated and weakened it, causing it to collapse on or about 12th Jane, 1902. Plaintiffs alleged that the collapse was the result of the negligence of the defendants for all or some of the following reasons:- -(1) That the defendants or one of them negligently allowed the trench to remain open for a far longer time than was necessary to carry out the work in hand, and had the work proceeded with reasonable expedition it would have been com- pleted and filled in before the rainy season set in, in which case the said wall would not have collapsed. (2) That in the alternative, if it was necessary to keep the said trench open for so long a time, the defendants or one of them knowing the rainy season to be approaching should have taken measures to safeguard the said wall by shoring or by adopting some other method of preventing the effect of or the accu- malation of water caused by a downpour of rain from getting at the said wall in such a way
|
|
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
|
[December 20, 1902,
as to weaken it and render it liable to collapse. The complainant, an old woman, was the first By reason of the negligence of the defendants witness. She deposed that ou the morning of as above alleged the plaintiffs bad suffored | 18th November prisoner engaged her boat to go damage to the extent of $1,000, such damage to the other side. On the way he ordered her being made up as follows:--Amount of tender | to take off her bangles, threatening that if she for rebuilding the wall, £900; fee to Messrs. did not do so he would "chop her u." She Leigh & Orange for surveying the premises, would not do as he told her and he ultimately $25; feo to Messrs. Palmer & Turn r the forced them off her wrists and rowed to Saiwan, like, $25; fee to Messrs. Palmer & Turner where he went ashors and made off. for superintending the re-erection of the said wall, $50.
In their statement of defence the defendants said that at the back of No. 1. Lower Albany runs a public road on Crown land called Gar 'en Road which road is at a level about 20 feet higher than the ground on which that house stands. The said road was almost entirely cut out of the natural slope of the hillside and was not at the time of the collapso mentioned supported by any retaining wall. Defendants further said that the rear portion of the site upon which the house stands was originally cat out of the natural hillside and that the earth exposed by such cutting was at the time of the collapse protected by a face wall belonging to the plaintiffs composed of lime concrete of about 20 feet in height and 2 feet in thickness. Defendants further stated that in January last the defendant W. Chatham as Water Authority commenced to construet and lay in Garden Road certain water-maius, ele., in connection with the water supply of the Colony; that in the course of the construction of such works a trench was necessarily opened in Garden Road upon Crown land in January and was closed and filled on or about 21st May last after the works had been temporarily com- pleted; that the said tre ch was re-opened on or about 6th June last, in order finally to complete the works, which were completed on or about 10th Juue, when the trench was finally closed, that these works were carried out in a proper and workmanlike manner without any unnecessary delay under the personal super- intendence of the defendant A. H. Hollings. worth. Defendants admitted that on or about 12th June last a portion of plaintiffs' wall collapsed, but stated that the collapse was occa sioned by the inherent weakness and faulty construction of the wall aggravated by heavy rainfall, wind, an other natural causes, fendants denied that any neglect or default of theirs or either of them or of any contractor, overseer, or workman employed by them or either of them in or about the works mentioned in any way occasioned or contributed to the collapse of the wall or occasioned any damago or loss to the plaintiff.
Evidence was taken, after which,
De-
His Lordship held that there had been negli. gence on the part of the defendante, sud gave judgment for the plaintiffs, with costs, the question of damages to be referred to tho Registrar.
The Court adjourned.
Thursday, 18th December.
IN CRIMINAL JURI-DICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR W. MEIGH GOOD. MAN (CHIEF JUSTICE).
THE CALENDAR.
Seven cases implica ing ten persons wore down on the calendar, and the charges included one of manslaughter au 1 two of armed robbery.
A COWARDLY ROBBERY.
Chu Yan was brought up on an indictment which set forth that on 18th November near Shaukiwan he committed larceny from the person by stealing from a boat-woman a pair of jades one bangles.
He pleaded not guilty.
The following jury was empanelled: -Messrs. R. H. B. Mitchell, F. L. Marques, J. Walker, H. E. Morris, J. M da S. Rozario, D. Currie, and E. G. Barrett.
The Attorney-General, Hon. Sir Henry S. Berkeley (instructed by Mr. F. B. L. Bowley, Crown Solicitor), conducted the prosecution. He stated in opening the case that on the morn. ing of the day in question the prisoner engaged the complainant's boat and robbed her of the bangles. They were a ́terwards recovered, and prisoner in the charge-room at the Police Station admitted that he stole them, although he now pleaded not guilty.
|
|
Prisoner asked the witness if it was not the case that he was her adop'ed son ?
Witness-No.
Prisouer-Did you not give me the bangles to raise money on them?
Witness-No; you took them from my wrists by fores.
Prisouer Is it not the case that I was a boilermaker some years ago and kept yon when you had no other support?
Witness-No; I never saw the man at all. Prisoner did not pursue his interrogation of the witness further, but contented himself with quoting the proverb " Prosperity makes friends, adversity tries them."
Evidence was given by a witness who saw the stolen bangles in the pris ner's possession and by a pawnbroker with whom he pawned them.
Prisoner, when asked if he had anything to say in his defence, said ho stole the bangles from his mother in China.
The jury unanimously found the prisoner guilty as libelled.
His Lordship characterised the offence as ā most cowardly thing on the prisoner's part, and sentenced him to five years' hard labour and to receive a flogging of 20 strokes with the birch within the first week.
ALLEGED BOAT ROBBERY.
Kwok Shing was charged with having, together with certain persons unknown, on the 28th July, in the waters of the Colony at Causeway Bay, committed assault and robbery on board a cargo-boat lying there.
Eo pleaded not guilty.
of
The Attorney-General said that according to the evidence it seemed that the prisoner in company with others boarded this cargo-boat at Causeway Bay during the typhoou. They shut up the master in the cabin on deck and then wont below and robbed the women who were on board. The stolon property consisted jewellery and about thirteen dollars in money. The robbers got clear away and nothing was heard about thom natil the month of November, when from information received the prisoner was arrested as being one of the gang. his arrest he made certain statements, which would be offered in evidence, and which, if accepted by the jury, amounted to an admission by him of his participation in the attack upon the cargo-boat and the robbery that took place,
On
In the course of the evidence that was given it was stated that the prisoner had been several times remanded from the Magistracy to plice custody. Commenting upon this fact,
His Lordship remarked that though he was not complaining in this case specially he desired the Attorney-General to inform the Magistrates that after a limit of at any rate eight days they should remand accused persons to prison and cot to police custody.
The Attorney-General admitted that it was nt right, but stated that in this case the prisoner had decided to tun King's evidence, but when it came to the point to give evidence he broke down. In prisoner's statement he stated that his share of the loot was $7.50.
In reply to the interrogation of the foreman of the jury, it was stated that the charge was not made against the prisoner for some days after his arrest. The police r frained from charging him so that they might make other arrests and charge all the prisoners together.
In consequence of a statement by the prisoner that he had been illtreated by two Chinese constables to make him tell about the robbery, the forem u of the jury said they desired the attendance of these cons ab'es in order that they might be examined with reference to the prisoner's allegations. The case was facco dingly adjourned until after lunchoon.
When the Court resumed, one of th se constables was put into the witness-bos. The prisoner identified bin as the man who had beaten him cruelly with a rattan while the other constable held a sword across his neck. Their purpose was to make him confess about the robbery.