far as regarded the principal witnesses for the Official Receiver, they were all equally interested in establishing the evidence they had come there to swear. The burden of proof lay on the plaintiff to prove that these men were partners. As to the evidence for and against the defen- dants, there was the evidence of various witnesses as to their recollection of conversations held with these defendants, most of them two or three years ago; then there was the evidence of various witnesses who said they saw Lo Yak Shang and Kwong Yik Lam at the Po Fung just after the failure at the meeting of creditors, taking part in the proceedings as though they were creditors; and thirdly there was the evidence of the various lists made by the managing partner, Kom Tai Yak. The evidence of conversations which were not admitted to be true was the most unsatisfactory form of evidence to establish against any man, and all the other witnesses called by the Official Receiver were very much interested in the result of this action. Mr. Slade in concluding his address stated that there was nothing in the books to show that the defendants were partners in the Bank.
Mr. Bruce Shepherd (Official Receiver), in in reply to his Lordship, stated that the books showed the two bankrupts to have been partners in the Bank; but the defendants were not mentioned except as depositors.
Mr. Hastings, in his address said he repre- sented the Official Receiver and through him the creditors. The issue as to whether these men were partners was a difficult one to come to a decision upon. The fact that the Official -Receiver had proceeded only against these three men must not be taken as an admission that they were the only partners, for he had only proceeded against those in respect of whom he had direct evidence on their declara- tions or otherwise as to their partnership. Those whom there was only hearsay evidence concerning their partnership had not been proceeded against. The sole question therefore was not who were the partners in the bank, but were these three men partners? The evidence adduced contained specific evidence that these three men were partners declara- tions made for a definite specific purpose. to obtain business for the bank, and in the course of canvassing friends and other persons to give their business to the bank and deposit their money in it. No doubt most of the parties who had given evidence were interested as creditors, but on the other hand these persons had the strongest interest in remembering what was said and taking a note of it at the time and treasuring it in their memories because it concerned the mode of dealing with the bank and depositing their money in it. Both the bankrupts were men of straw. The creditors there were men of business who had deposited large sums with the bank, some of them $8,000 and $12,000; and they would not have dealt with this bank unless they had made enquiries and found out that there were substantial men at the back of it. That they did so was shown by the fact that the bank owed them $120,000.
His Lordship deferred judgment.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
HONGKONG SANITARY
BOARD
PROSECUTIONS.
57
(July 2, 1904.
to look up the inspector of that district, who visited these houses with Mr. Craddock and pointed out the work required. It was carried out, and Mr. Osborne saw it and was satisfied that he had done everything he possibly could to meet the wishes of the Board. It was not until some time later, when he received a summons to
A meeting of the Sanitary Board was held in the Board Room on the 30th ult. Dr. J. M. Atkinson presided, and there werealso present Hon. P. N. Jones (Vice-President), appear at the Police Court, that he found the Hon. A. W. Brewin, Registrar-General; Mr. work had not been carried out. It was distinctly F. J. Badeley, Captain of Police; Colonel wrong that such important work should be re- W. E. Webb, R.A.M.C.; Mr. Lau Chalegated to subordinate officers of the Board which, Pak, Mr. Fung Wa Chun; Mr. A. Rumjahn; in this case, resulted in the dismissal of the Hon. H. E. Pollock, K.C.; Mr. E. A. Hewett; summons against the Godown Co., for they Dr. W. W. Pearse, Medical Officer of Health; might find themselves in a false position and and Mr. T. A. Hanmer (Acting Secretary). they might individually and collectively as members of the Board be held responsible for the acts of the servants of the Board. This -case clearly proved that it was very wrong that this work should be put into the hands of the inspectors, and therefore to prevent the recurrence of such thing he brought forward this motion. There were an enormous number of prosecutions constantly being taken against Chinese, and he thought he had reason for fearing that similar mis- takes. or indiscretions were committed with regard to the Chinese of which they heard nothing. It was very evident that they must do everything they possibly could to see that the work under this section of the Ordinance was carried out without friction, more especially with regard to the lower class of Chinese. He would have preferred to have made the Secretary or Assistant Secretary responsible for the duties mentioned in his motion instead of the President or
Mr. HEWETT had given notice that he would move as follows: "That no prosecutions be instituted by any Officer deputed by the Board under Section 30 of the Public Health and Buildings Ordinance. 1903, until the matter has been approved of by the President of the Sani- tary Board, or in his absence. by the Vice President."
Mr. LAU CHU PAK minuted:- I doubt if the President or Vice-President can po round and verify every report made by the inspectors. Every officer of the Sanitary Board should be held liable for the proper and satisfactory performance of the duties delegated to him, In the case in question I am of opinion that if anyone was to blame those who were in favour of the existing bye-laws were to blame. They give too much power to the officers to do things according to their own fancy. A sub-committee should be appointed to reconsider the bye-laws, and the Secretary should be instructed that at all times before issuing notices on the strength of the inspectors reports he must consult the M.O.H."
Vice-President. At any rate it was absolutely imperative in order to secure the proper and satisfactory working of this thing that prosecu- tions should not be undertaken without the knowledge of and before the facts of the case had been gone into by one member of the Board.
Hon. Mr. POLLOCK Seconded the motion.
some member of the Board. The President would be the most suitable member for that
Mr. RUMJAHN minuted :—” From what I can gather the proceedings against the Godown Co. have certainly brought upon the Board, or more strictly speaking the administration of the He thought it desirable that before any prose- Sanitary Department, the opprobrium of thecution was instituted it should be approved by public. The time has now come when the system- an inheritance of the old Board and not a creation of the present should be remedied, thoroughly overhauled; but it cannot be gainsaid that matters have improved under the new regime and progress has been the order of the day since the constitution of the present Board. It might not be generally known that the Sanitary Board is not responsible for the selection and appoint- ment of any of the officers who are chosen to carry out regulations in the name of the Board; and further, that the correspondence of the department and practically all proceedings against offenders, real or supposed, are carried out in the name of the Board generally without the knowledge and consent of its members as a whole."
Mr. HEWETT in proposing his motion said he was not a member of the Board when the present Building Ordinance came into force, but he knew what arguments were put forward at the time certain officers were appointed to act for the Board under Section 30 of the Ordinance. and that the very serious question arose after- wards regarding the manner in which this very important branch of the work carried out.
He expressed dissatisfaction with the system, but the majority of the members did not agree with him. and the matter was dropped. Since then there had been
was
purpose. There could be no doubt the inspectors always endeavoured to do their best in the matter of these prosecutions, but unfor. tunately, as had happened in this case of the Godown Co., some mistake seemed to have been made. It would be more satisfactory in the future if prosecutions were not institutéd without the sanction of the President of the Vice-President.
1
Mr. RUMJAHN had no hesitation in saying that the Godown Co. had been unnecessarily worried over a very trivial matter. It was clear that the Secretary of the Company did all he possibly could to satisfy the wishes of the inspector, and he should not have been allowed to push the matter to the extreme by bringing the case before the Magistrate, in view of the fact that in default of limewashing to the satisfaction of the Board only can that If the Godown prosecution be instituted. Co. had been so much worried, managed by an Englishman who up to a few months ago was a member of the Board himself, what treat- ment could the ignorant Chinese expect to receive at the hands of the officers of the Department should he come in contact with them? It was fair to say that the manage- ment of the Department under Dr. Pearse had vastly improved, but there was still much room that the proposal made over a year ago that for great improvement. He was afraid the prosecutions be conducted by the inspectors was time, demanded by Mr. Hewett's motion, of the not calculated to facilitate the work of the President or Vice-President could not be spared Board. On the 11th April a notice was sent to
because in dealing with applications for sum- Kowa Lung Kee sued Cheung San for the Secretary of the Godown Co., calling upon monses inspection of the premises or such other $337 in respect of damages for the loss of 60 him to have certain work done in the servants smatter would have to be made. He would amendment that no pro- bundles of goods which the defendant had quarters of three European houses belonging to propose as undertaken to deliver, the goods having been the Co. He was a director of that Co. himself secutions be instituted by any officer de- handed over to the wrong party under an alleged and therefore had a small interest in it, but that puted by the Board under section 30 of the Mr. Public Health and Buildings Ordince 1903. forged delivery paper. Mr. John Hastings, had nothing to do with this matter. solicitor, represented the plaintiff, and Mr. Osborne put the notice into the hands of his until the matter has been approved of by a G. K. Hall Brutton, solicitor, the defendant. European overseer, and to the best of his committee consisting of the M. O. H. and
Some time two unofficial members of the Board. His Lordship gave judgment for the plain-belief the work was carried out. tiff with costs.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR T. SERCOMBE SMITH another case to strengthen him in his opinion
(PUISNE JUDGE.)
LOSS OF GOODS.
A DENTIST'S ACCOUNT.
Dr. Noble & Co., dentists, sued R. M. Ezekiel for $260 for services rendered and teeth, etc., supplied. Mr. John Hastings, solicitor, appear- ed for the plaintiffs. Defendant was absent.
His Lordship, after hearing evidence by Dr. L. R. Peel, of the plaintiff company, gave judg. ment for the plaintiff with costs.
afterwards Mr. Osborne received a letter stating that the work had not been done. Mr. Osborne wrote twice saying that the work had been properly carried out, and that he did not think it was the wish of the Board to worry, people unnecessarily, and asking that the matter be brought to the notice of the Board. The only redress Mr. Osborne had ́was to appeal to the Council. He sent his overseer
an
Mr. LAU CHU PAK seconded. It was bad policy, he said, to allow any of the sanitary inspectors to interpret the law in their own-way and give them a free hand, which led them to believe that they were responsible only to one or two of their superior officers and to ignore others. Now when the new overcrowding law was being strictly enforced there were sure to be every day a good many notices, both written
LPage 11