216
SUPREME COURT.
Monday, 14th September.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR A. G. W18H (PUISNE JUDGE).
CHINA LIGHT AND POWER CO., LD.
Mr. M. W. Slade, barrister-at-law (instructed by Mr. J. Scott Harston of Messrs. Ewens & Harston, solicitors), appeared in support of a petition under the Companies Ordinanc s of 1877 and 1888 for the confirmation of a special resolution reducing the capital of this Company from $300,000 to $150,000.
His Lordship granted the petition, and ordered the necessary advertisements to be made.
The Court adjourned.
Wednesday, 16th September.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE).
A BISMARCK AND CO. CASE.
A cas, was called in whicuwong Sui Hing Kwong Kam Chuen, Lau Chung Ming and Tang Pui Chung alias Pui Ching Tong, trading under the name of the Hop Shing Tong. sued Kwok Chai | Hin, 18, Con- naught Road Central, claiming from the defendant the sum of $1,000 du, on & promissory note given by the defendant to the plaintiffs and dated 31st May, 1903. This was a test case on the decision of which the payment or otherwise of several other promissory notes depended. Mr. M. W. Slade," barrister-at-law (instructed by Mr. E. J. Grist of Messrs. Wil- kinson & Grist, solicitors), appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr. H E. Pollock, K.C., barrister at-law (instructed by Mr. G. K. Hall Bratton, solicitor), was for the defence.
Mr.Slade in his opening statement said that the plaintiffs were par.bers with the defendant in the business known as Bismarck & Co. or other wise as the Man Wo. That business was
of
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
Plaintiffs did not accept that as being anything like correct, but as it became obvious that they could not get more than the previous offer they closed at $25,000 for the business in Port Arthur. Defendant paid $2,000 in cash as part payment and bind. Of this sum of $25,000, $1,000 was to be paid in cash and the remainder made up in various waya. A few days later defendant said he could not pay dash; would they accept his promissory netes for $9,000, the balance of the $11,000 P Plain- tiffs agreed and these notes were put into writing and drawn up and signed in the presence of all the parties on the 30th May. Now defendant repudiated the notes on the ground of want of May, and now he wanted to avoid pavment
consideration. He had had the business since
Evidence was taken for the plaintiff.
Mr. Pollock submitted that the time of payment stipulated in the documents had been altered by the plaintiffs without the consent of the defendant, and at present it was only an acknowledgment of what was to be due to the plaintiffs upon taking the accounts of the Port Arthur business. They were not promis- sory notes.
Defendant and other witnesses having been called.
Evidence in support was given by Mr. Brutton, the defendant, and the Court trans- lator, and Mr. Pollock having addressed the Court on the facts of the case,
Mr. Slade replied.
His Lordship reserved judgment.
Thursday, 17th September.
In ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR A. G. WISH (PUISNE JUUGE),
PARTNERSHIP CASE.
Evidence was again heard in the action in that which Wong Wa Po sought to prove Tang Kai Ch aug was a partner in the Wing Chan firm, 22 Circular Pathway, the case ari ing out of a judgment given on May 29th for $1.50. A claim had been heard before the and Court in respect to property sold by the defendant to the plaintiff, and during the bearing of that claim. i was alleged, defendant described himself to the Land Conrt as being the master of the Wing Chan shop.
Mr. T Morgan Phillips, barrister-at-law (instruote by Mr. P. W. Goldring, of Messrs. Deacon and Hastings, solicitors), was for the plaintiff, and Mr. M. W. Slade, barrister at-law (instructed by Mr. E. A. Bonner, of Messrs. Dennys and Bowley, solicitors) defendant.
for the
His Lordship found that the defendant wai not a partner in the Wing Chan shop,
The Court adjourned.
Friday, 18th September
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR WILLIAM M. GOODMAN (CHIEF JUSTICE).
THE CALENDAR.
carried on here in Hongkong, with a branch at Port Arthur. Plaintiffs were sleeping part- ners; they took no part in the management either of the Hongkong or the Port Arthur businesses, which were entirely under the con- trol of the defendant. For some time past the plaintiffs had been dissatisfied with the way in which the defendant had carried on the business and in particular with the absence of accounts from the Port Arthur branch. At the end of last year some time in October a fire occurred in the Port Arthur premises of the firm and in das course, in November or December, the insurance compauy concerned paid to the defendant the sam $115,000. About the same time the defendant was pressing the partners in Hongkong for more funds, and they not unnaturally wanted 8 me of the liabilities of the firm to be paid out of the $115,000, of which they never got any part, and in the course of the discus- sions that ensued the defendant told the part- ners tuat the value of the Port Arthur business was $60,000 and he could realise that amount for it. In the early part of the present Chinese year it was agreed that the defendant should take over the Port Arthur business while the plaintiffs kapt 'oa the Hongkong business. Then came a discussion as to the price which should be paid the defendant for the Port Arthur business, giving, of course, credit for the value of the Hongkong business. Basing their estimate on that given by the defendant, and making him a liberal allowance, the plaintiffs asked $35,000 for the Port Arthur business. Defendant offered $20,000. After long nego- tiations between the parties, plaintiffs ca ne down to $30,000 and defendant went up to $25,000. At that stage the negotiations were stopped for some time. The partners pressed him to pay $80,000, and he said before he did so he and must telegraph up to Port Arthur
value of the business. enquire as to the Later he told the film that they had They did s1, better telegraph themselves.
Mr. Sharp said there was a bond for $2,000 asking what the value of the Port Arthur brazch was. The reply to that was $37,000, and $ 00 in cash.
There were down for hearing 15 cases in- volving 22 persons, inclu ling Cart Vincenz, the Germa i charged with shooting a chair-coolie.
CASES DISCHARGED.
Mr. E. H. Sharp, K.C., barrister-at-law, who appeared on behalf of the Attorney-General Hon. Sir Henry S. Berkeley (instructed by Mr. H. Hurstbonse, Acting Crown Colicitor), stated that in the cases in which Pan Kuo was charged with forgery and an Indian constable, Mola Siugh, with perjary, the Attorney-General had decided, after careful consideration of the evidence giveu at the Police Court, that there was not sufficient ovidence on which to file an information.
His Lordship ordered the accused to be dis- charged.
ALLEGED LARCENY OF CORRESPONDENCE.
A case was called in which Chun Yak Lan was charged with larceny of correspondence. Accused failed to appear.
His Lordship said he supposed there was a bail-bond. What was it?
[September 21, 1903.
His Lordship sent for Mr. Looker, the solicitor who had obarge of the defence when the accused was before the Police Court, and asked him what were the circumstances under which the bail was granted.
it.
Mr. Looker said he applied for bail and got
had
His Lordship-He got bail and you nothing more to do with it?
Mr. Looker-No, your Lordship; he got bail and was remanded.
His Lordship-And you had nothing more to do with it?
Mr Looker-Yes; he asked me to instruct counsel and I got the depositions. When I sent for him three or four days ago I was asked if I could guarantee to get him off, and I told him not to talk nonsense, and I have heard nothing further about it.
His Lordship-I suppose we may assume that the man has gone away?
Mr. Looker-I think it is exceedingly probable. I am told that he left deeds at the Magistracy.
His Lordship ordered a Bench warrant to be issued for the apprehension of the accused and the bail to be escheated.
<< A MURDEROus assault.”
Chau Loi, a young Chinaman, and Wong Fang, his mother, were charged with having on 5th August, at New Kowloon, assaulted the first prisoner's wife, Li Sam Mui, and wounded her with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
They pleaded not guilty.
The following jury was empanelled :-Messrs. E. J. Moses, F. A. Chopard, G. Humphries, W. H. Watson, N. G. Majer, K. D. Mistry, and W. F. Muat.
+
Mr. Sharp in opening the case said the prisoners were charged with having committed an assault of a very murderous character, and he thought they were very fortunate, considering the natare of the assault, in n t being there on the more serious charge of murder. The male prisoner had been married for about seven years to the complainant. The household did not appear to have been a happy one, and both prisoners were apparently on bad terms with the complainant. The man frequently absented himself from home for a very considerable period. On the 5th of last month he returned home ear y in the morning from one of those absences and a conversation ensued between the two prisoners in the presence of the woman who was subsequently assaulted, but who heard only a part of it. The last words apparently spoken in that conversation were uttered by the man, who said to his mother, "If you do not want her"
(the wife) "I do not." Thereupon the mau sei ed a chopper and attacked his wife, with the assistance of his mother, who held her while he assaulted her. In the assault com- mitted upon her, the wife was severely wounded, three of the toes of one foot being cut off, her right leg injured, and there were other injuries- as well. As a result he understood the woman would be lame for life. Fortunately she managed to escape and run into the Polica Station close by and was taken to the Govern- ment Civil Hospital, where she lay for sme weeks unable to give evidence owing to the serious character of her injuries. Both prisoners had made statements which suggested that jealousy was the cause of the crime. The wife said this was unfounded, and that she had never heard any suggestion of the kind before the assault. And supposing that to have been so, his Lordship would tell the jury that in law it was no excuse for committing the assault.
Evidence was taken.
His Lordship having summed up, The jury returned an unanimous verdict of guilty against both prisoners.
His Lordship, addressing the male prisoner, said he had been guilty of a very brutal assault. The maximum penalty for the offence of which he had been found guilty was imprisonment for life. His Lordship was not going to imposs the full penalty, taking into consideration the ignorance of his early upbringing. This was a very bad case, and the sentence would be two years' imprisonment with. hard labour and 24 strokes of the birch within the first week. The woman was sentencl to 12 months" imprisonment with hard labour.·
The Court adjourned.
Page 10Page 11