Page
October 24, 1903.]
SUPREME COURT.
Monday, 19th October,
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR Sir William M. GOODMAN (CHIEF JUSTICE).
DISCHARGED.
Leung Yam Tai and Man Hop King, two elderly women #Ho were charged with manslaughter in connection with the death of a woman in childbed in the Fingshan distrist of the New Territory, were discharged, the Attorney-General, Sir Henry S. Berkeley, stating that he did not intend to proceed against them.
•
THEFT BY A JEWELLER'S WORKMAN,
Wong I Lan was charged with having, while the servant of оде Ng. Fak, jeweller, Cochrane Street, on Bist July stolen two piecos of gold, and on 19th August stolen one piece of gold and received a diamond ring that had been stolen.
He pleaded guil y to stealing the gld but denied the receipt of the ring.
The following jury was empanelled Messrs. C. W. Richards (foreman), G. B. Eldridge, I. Turner, C. W. Herser. J. Little, N. H. Autia, and W. D. C. Spalck haver.
The Attorney-General said the defendant had been employed in complainant's jewelry-shop as a worker in gold. He left the shop on 12th September, and on the 14th another employee left. Subsequent to their departure certain valuables were foudd missing, among other things this ring which prisoner was charged with receiving. Afterwards he went to Cantou. The prosecutor's wife followed him and brought him back and he was handed over to the Hongkong police.
His Lordship paised sentence of twelve months' imprisonment with hard labour, and recommended that the prisoner be deported at
the end of his sentence.
THEFT OF DIAMONDS.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
Cheung Kan pleaded guilty, and Woo Ku not guilty.
Evidence showed that Cheung Kan went to the house to see the master, who was a friend of bis. The master was not in, and as he wanted enough money to take him to Canton he took the box, not thinking that it was of so much value as it actually was. The other man was a party to the theft. They were making off with the box when the people of the house noticed them, and gave chase; and they were captured.
The jury found the charge against the second prisoner proved, and they were each sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labour.
The Court adjourned.
Tuesday, 20th October.
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION,
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR WILLIAM
M. GOODMAN (CHIEF JUSTICE). -
ALLEGED BRIBERY.
29th September offered to 8. M. Gidley, sani- Yeung Shui was charged with having on
and two jars of ginger with a view to influence tary inspector, a bribe of$10, two boxes of cigars,
the cleansing of Heung Lane, the conduct of the inspector in connection with
Mr. M. W. Slade, barrister-at-law (instructed He pleaded not guilty, and was defended by
by Mr. C. E. H. Beavis, of Messrs. Wilkinson & Grist, solicitors).
The following jury were empanelled:- Messrs. C. Schroeter, W. McCorquadale, F. D. Baretto, F. W. Melchers, Hutchison. J.
J. Little, and J. Wacker,
stated that the prisoner was a servant in the The Attorney-General, in opening the case,
want to Inspector Gidley's house ani hauded to Lan On ginger-shop. On 29th September ha
hita two boxes of cigars, two jars of ginger, and After hearing evidence, the jury found the him, "These are for you from my master." The an envelope containing two $5 notes, saying to prisoner guilty as libelled.
Inspector took the man into custody there and then and trok him, along with the articles offered duty of the inspector as oue of the sanitary staff as a bribe, to the police station. It was the
to sea, among other things, that the lane in which the shop of the prisoner's master was situated was kept clean, and it was suggested that the object of offering this brib3 was to make the inspector go easy in respect to the cleansing of Houng Lane. Prisoner by Way of explanation said master told him to take thes things and give them to the inspector. There was no difficulty at all about the facts. The question would be whether the prisoner had a knowledge of the object with which these presents were these articles were offered with a view to in- sent to the inspector. If prisoner knew that fluence his conduct as a public servant, he was equally guilty with his master.
Chiu Cheong was charged with having, on 11th September, being then employed by one Ng Fuk, stolen seven diamonds.
He pleaded not guilty.
The Attorney-General in opening the case said the prisoner was employed in the shop of Ng Fuk, jeweller. Fifteen diamonds were given to him to set. On the 14th September he absconded, and on examination of the place where he used to work the master found that only eight out of the fifteen dia- monds were in the drawer in which they had been kept. Naturally he supposed that the prisoner had abscopfled with the other seven His doubts were set at rest because he got a letter from the prisoner practically admitting the charge against Him. He admitted having taken the diamonds but said he lent then to a man to look at, an approval as it were, and that the man ran away with them. If that was all the excuse he had to offer the jury would have to find him guilty. The wife of the prosecutor went to Canton and brought the prisoner back, and he was given into custody.
Having heard the evidence the jury found the charge proven.
His Lordship passed sentence of 18 mouths' imprisonm.nt with hard labour.
RETURNING FROM BANISHMENT.
Ngan Fuk was charged with returning from banishment.
He pleaded guilty. He said that when he was banished he went to Canton for a month
and then returned to Hongkong on the advice of & friend.
The Attorney-General stated that this was the third time the prisoner had returned from banishment.
His Lordship passed sentence of twelve months' imprisonment with hard labour and ordered that the prisoner be banished at the eud
of that term.
HOUSEBREAKING,
Cheung Kan and Woo Ku were charged with having broken into a dwelling-house at 10, High Street and stolen a box containing clothing, a pipe, etc., valued at $487.
that his
charge not proven.
The jury, after hearing evidence, found the
His Lordship discharged the prisoner.
In connection with the same case Lui Fo the master of the shop, was charged with having procured to be offered to Inspector Gidley the articles mentioned above as a bribe.
He pleaded not guilty. The following jury were empanelled : Messrs. A. Ellis, A. H. Tyack, N. H. Antra, J. R. Michael, A. N. Huke, A. A. Alves, and W. O. C. Spalckbaver.
The Attorney-General related the facts of the case, which were the same as stated above, prisoner being the master of the shop who sent Yeung Shui to give the bribe to Inspector Gidley.
305
and therefore it is right that those who offer them and so tempt others to crime should be punished also. In this case, bearing in mind all the circumstances, will not send ran to prison, but you must pay a fine of $500, in failure of which you must be imprisoned. I understand that you are prepared to pay that fine. The jury did quite right in convicting you, but I do not regard it as a really bad case, and I trust the punishment inflicted will act as a warning to others. If not I shall have to inflict severer punishment in future.
The Court rose.
Thursday, 22nd October.
IN APPELLATE JURISDICTION,
BEFORE THEIR HONOURS SIR WILLIAM M. GOODMAN (CHIEF JUSTICE) AND A. G. W18E (PUISNE JUDGE).
KWOK CHIN HIN V. KWONG SUI HING AND
OTHERS.
respon-
This was a notice of motion for leave to
the 19th September, 1903, on questions of fact, appeal against a decision of Mr. Justice Wise of
his Lordship, it was alleged, having, contrary to the evidence, found as facts that (a) the altered since the appellant affixed his signature; document sued upon in the action had been
(b) that the document was not to be sued apou until the accounts of the Port Arthur business had been gone into jointly by the ap- dents; (c) that there was no agreement come to pellant and by somebody on behalf of the
between the parties in the month of June, 1903, for the Chinese agreement to be entered int btween them with reference to the
respondents for the Port Arthur business; (d) consideration to be paid by the appellant to the
that the letter Exhibit 10 which showed the value of the Port Arthur assets to h only $23 700 was probably invented for the purpose of the said action; on the ground that one Shing Kwai, otherwise Yew Hing. was a enumerated in (d) and that his Lordship refused material and necessary witness upon the facts
to allow an adjournment of the action on the application of the appellant for the purpose of allowing time for Shing Kwai to come down from Dalny to 'give evidence; and on the question of law the ground that the respondents and appellant having agreed together for the purchase of the Port Arthur business by the appellant for the sum of $25,000 upon the basis that the assets of the sail business were valued at $37,300 whereas in trujh and in fact the assets were valued at $27,700 only there was no consideration for the payment by the appellant to the respondents of the sum of $1,000” which was mentioned in the document sued upon or of any sum or sums of money, whatever other than certain sums aggregating $16,000 which the respon lents had already prior to the commence- ment of the action received from the appellant.
The jury found the charge proven. understand your firm is a respectably conducted His Lordship in passing sentence said, I
one, and I do not think that in this case it is shown that you wished to bribe the sanitary inspector to do anything really bad. It is clear, however, that you wished to influence to treat your shop and the lane you used with his conduct as a public servant to cause him special favour. There could be no object in making presents of goods and money do his duty and act the Sanitary Inspector to make him simply
towards with
your shop до more consideration than towards others in his district. But if bribes are taken the recipients richly deserve punishment, ́
to
од
Hon. H. E. Pollock, K.C., barrister-at-la (instructed by Mr. G. K. Hall Bru tól solicitor), appeared for the appellaut.
The nisue Judge asked if the costs ordered to be paid into Court in the case had been paid in ? Otherwise the appellant could not proceed.
Hon. Mr. Pollock said part of the costs had been paid, but not all. However, that could not affect the right of appeal though it woul apply to the question of execution.
The Paisne Judge replied that he had no right to appeal until he had paid his costs. His Lordship would not have stayed execution if he had known the costs were not to be paid. The whole case had been a job from beginning to end and he had been treated by the appellants in a manner he did not like.
The Chief Justice asked Mr Brutton if the costs were going to be paid in f
Mr. Brutton replied that they would. The Puisne Judge-Then_pay them in at once. I have told you, Mr. Brutton, over and over again about this case.
The Chief Justice remarked that they bad had the benefit of the stay of execution and yet had not paid the money into Court. Would the costs be paid in before Saturday?
Mr. Brutton-Yes, your Lordship, I will pay them in to-morrow.
The bearing of the motion was adjourned till Monday, the 2nd November, and the Court rose.
1