388
Macao, who have secured three witnesses, clerks in the Namboi Magis racy, for the prosecution.
EAST RIVER,
The Viceroy proposas to establish a Water Police Stat on on the East River, near Shek. Inng. It is to be composed of two officers and 62 constables, etc. Boats, both large and small. will now have to be registered. 8490 paid monthly as a tax by four juuks trading regular. ly between Canton and Sheklung, towed by steam-lanoches, is in part to defray expenses of the scheme.
SUPREME COURT.
Monday, 16th May.
BEFORE HIS HOXOUR SIR WILLIAM M. GOODMAN (CHIEF JUSTICE).
A CHINESE BANK'S FAILURE.
The partners of the Po Fung bank came up for public examination in bankruptcy. Mr. H. W. Looker, of Messrs Deacon. Looker, & Deacon, solicitors, appeared for Kwong Kam Nam, one of the partners. Various creditors were represented by Mr. J. Hastings, solicitor; Mr. S. W. Tso, solicitor; Mr. E. A. Bonner. of Messrs. Dennys and Bowley, solicitors; and Mr. F. Paget Hett. of Mr. G. K. Hall Brutton's office.
Kwong Kam Nam. partner in the firm, ex- amined by the Official Receiver (Mr. Bruce Shepherd), said there was one other partner in the business, which was started in September or October, 1901. Before that he was in California. He put $38,000 in cash into the business.
on
these
Mr. Hastings at this stage objected to the presence of the debtor's partner in the Court
It during his examination. was alleged
behalf of the creditors that two men were fraudulently concealing from the
Court that they had other partners, rich men, fully capable of paying the debis of the firm. One of them had made statements in writing as to these partners, which statements they had got in their hands. Yet now the debtors claimed that they had no partners. He thought it was important that the two debtors should be examined separately.
The Official Receiver did not think there was any objection to the presence of the other deh- tor during the examination of his partner. They were co-debtors.
His Lordship held that it was not necessary that the partner should be out of Court.
money
was
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
March. He did not know how that money was spent.
Chung Kai Yu. the other partner in the a banker bank, deposed that he had been for nine years. He joined the Po Fung bank about three years ago. The $5.000 he put into the business was his own money and was paid in cash.
By his Lordship - No one except. Kwong Kam Nam and himself had any interest in the Po Fung bank at prosent. He did not know about partners: Kwong Kam Nam would know about that. In Chinese firms there were big and little shares. He and Kwong Kam Nam held the big shares. When the business was floated Kwong Kam Nam told him the names of some small shareholders -Kwong Ysat Hong. Kwong Yick Nam, Lai Yu Fong, Ma Fo Tsai, and Ho Yat Hing. These names did not appear in the partnership book.
The examination was afterwards adjourned,
Tuesday. 17th May.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR WILLIAM M.
GOODMAN (CHIEF JUSTICE).
LAND COURT APPEAL CASE.
Mr. M. W. Slade, barrister-at-law (instructed
by Mr. J. Scott Harston, of Messrs. Ewens & Harston, solicitors), appeared in support of a motion for leave to appeal to the Full Court, against a decision of the Land Court in respect to certain foreshore land near Laichikok, in the
New Territory. The Crown was represented by the Attorney-General. Hou. Sir Henry S. Berkeley (instructed by Mr. F. B. L. Bowley. Crown Solicitor.
་
Mr. Slade stated that the appellant was Tang Tsu C. 54. Hollywood Road, and land concerned was Claim C.A.. the
It was Survey District No. 4.
an appeal against a judgment of the President of the Land Court dated 18th February, 1904, a decree that on 20th August, 1906, the grants to the appellant herein became voidable and might have been cancelled by the Chinese Government at any time by the non-fulfilment. of the terms on which they were issued, and that the Government of Hongkong had the right to cancel the said grants by reason of having succeeded to the rights of the Government of China on 1st July. 1898. on the ground that the said portion of the said judgment was erroneous both in fact and in law, and on the ground that the evidence of the witness Lan Chi Peng was improperly admitted.
Having heard counsel.
His Lordship. without indicating any opinion as to whether or no the President of the Land Court was wrong upon any of the points men- tioned by counsel, gave the appellant leave to appeal to the Full Court, subject to his giving security to the satisfaction of the Registrar to the amount of $2.500 for costs. in the terms of his motion paper, provided such appeal be brought within three months.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
(PUISNE JUDGE).
ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT.
Ho Chan Tong, carrying on business as the Shing Kee firm of Chantsun. near the boundary of the New Territory on the Chinese side, and presently residing at 94, Bonham Strand East, sued Cheung San. master of the junk Tsun
Examination continued-His partner Chang Kai Yu put $5,000 into the business. No other people put any capital in. They carried on business as Chinese bankers, advancing money on promissory notes and scrip shares. When the receiving order was made they had advanced in this manner $140.000 (odd) principal. They owed people nearly $120,000. When their friends deposited money with them they were paid simple interest at market rates. The rate of interest was about one per cent. a month. Now it was not so much-about six-tenths per cent. He did nothing in the business but BEFORE HIS HONOUR T. SERCOMBE SMITH keep the keys. The taking in and paying out of
done by apprentices. He never took any money out of the safe on his own account. His partner owed the bank $4,800 and had also advanced to him $55,000 as partner of the Yee Chung firm. When he was in California he kept a pawnshop. He found out that the bank was insolvent in March of this year. There was a run on the bank. At that time their liabilities amounted to nearly $120.000 and assets to about $140,000 in promissory notes. etc. If all the bank's cre- ditors had paid, the bank would have had more than sufficient to meet their liabilities. His partner drew out from the bank for another business of his at Kong
a further
of 815.000, making in all $69,000 that he drew out. When Chung Kai Yu took that money out he said he was in a position to pay it back. He was to pay interest on it. When the run on the bank commenced they borrowed money to stave off the demands upon them. He did not know how much they borrowed. He was not aware that the books of the firm showed that they received $99,000 between 1st February and 9th
moon
sum
ing (259H), also of Chantsun, for $332 dam ages in respect of breach of contract to deliver certain goods shipped from Chantsun on board defendant's junk to the Ko Wa Lung Kee firm,
|
94. Bonham Strand East. Mr. E. A. Bonner, of Messrs. Dennys and Bowley, solicitors, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. G. K. Hall Brutton. solicitor, for the defendant.
Mr. Benner stated that upon 25th March the plaintiff shipped 60 bundles of Chinese paper consigned to the Ko Wa Lung Kee of Hongkong. He was a merchant who frequently had goods consigned to him which he sent to various firms in Hongkong, and he had to pay duty to the Chinese Customs. The consignees, the Ko Wo Lung Kee, had previously traded as the Ko Wa: it was in March that they changed their style. The goods were shipped on board
[May 21, 1904.
defendant's junk, but were not delivered to the Ko Wa Lung Kee. The owner of the junk brought back a receipt purporting to be chopped by the firm.
After hearing witnesses,
His Lordship non-suited the plaintiff with costs on the ground that he was not the proper party to bring this action, he not being owner of the goods but simply having been employed to forward them.
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
Wednesday, 18th May.
BEFORE SIR W. M. GOODMAN (CHIEF
JUSTICE).
ALLEGED ARSON,
Tam Wan, a Chinaman, was charged, with setting fire to a dwelling house, persons being therein. Sir H. Spencer Berkeley (Attorney- General) prosecuted, and Mr. Ñ. H. Slade,' barrister-at-law, instructed by Mr. P. W. Goldring, solicitor, of Mr. John Hastings's office, appeared on behalf of the defendant.
Prisoner pleaded not guilty.
The following jurors were empanelled:- Turner, Albert Schmidtborn, Arthur Pearson Messrs. Alfredo Maria Roza, Charles Lee, Isaac
Goodwin, Edward Stephen, and Sassoon Ezra Moses.
In opening the case the Attorney-General said the facts
that were
on the 9th April a fire occurred at No. 138, Wellington street, & four story house.
The fire brok, out
in the early hours in the morning between two and three o'clock. At this house the occupant of the second floor had insurances, cova ing furniture, goods, clothing, etc., total ing $4,000. These insurances had been issued all within a month, under the name of Pun Tak. On the 9th March the men in question had taken out a policy for $2,000, on the 18th March another policy for $1,700, and on the 24th March a third for $1,000. All the policies were for the sec ind floor. The fire occurred, as previously mentioned. on the 9th April, a few days after the last policy was taken out People were living both above and below the second floor. When the police arrived shortly after the fire had started the second and third floors were burning fiercely. The fire, therefore, started either on the second or third floor there was no fire on the first floor. Each The ground floor was let to separate tenants. floor was occupied by a shoemater and a silversmith, the first by a family house, second by defendant, and third by a storekeeper. A witness of the second floor would state that she first saw the fire on the staircase leading from the fist to the second floor. The prisoner and his wife were servants to Hung Hang Chi but at the time of the fire this min wis at Canton. The theory of the prosecution was first that Hung Hang Chi had gone to Canton, leaving the other man to barn the house. The tenant on the first floor was awakened by ories of "fire," and getting up saw tire on the stairs half-way between the first and second floors. This person got water and put out the flames; there were bundles of fi e-wood on the stairs, This witness also saw a room on the seond floor burning. He ran down the stairs and com. menced Lo
his
Another boxes. witness who saw fire on the stairs ran out and gave an alarm. A man living next door heard shouts from his neighbours, and forced his way through a partition on the verandah,
No one saw the with the r sult that he found a quantity of paper lanterns burning. prisoner set fire to the house-it was very rarə in arson cases that anyone did. There were
fires:-one fica in the room, one. three ou the stairs, and one on the verandab,
Evidence was led.
remove
Included among the witnesses were the per- sous spoken of by the Attorney-General. Police Inspector Gourlay said he was the first of the He judgǝl that it Police Force to see the fire. must have started in the back part of the building.
· Mr. Judah, of Messre, Turner & Co., was called upon to give evidence regarding the first man- tioned insurance policy. The Attorney-General asked him a leading question as to the premises. Mr. Slade rose to his feet and vigorously objected to the Attorney-General's question. Witness