A
Auguts 22, 1904. Į
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
set up
a custom of trade. A custom can be, annexed to a contract if not contrary to it. but a mere custom cannot bind either party unless there is a contract between the parties. There must be some consideration, and the plain tiff did nothing. When there is introduction. the custom might be enforced; even in this case, if there had been an express promise to pay, it would have been invalid for want of considera tion, and an act which a compradore was legally bound to do could not form the consideration for an independent contract.
Judgment for defendant, with costs.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
(CHIEF JUSTICE).
|
131
the child from the father. As a matter of fast the father of the child was dead.
Evidence was taken.
His Lordship in the course of the hearing of the case remarked that he would like the Chin- ese in this Colony to understand that such i thing as buying and selling children was quite unknown to the law here. To law did not allow any such proceeding. A child was not a subject of sale like goods and chattels. might adopt, bat you could not buy a child.
The jury after hearing the evidence found the charge proven.
You
Chau Hong, alias Ho Hong, was afterwards charged with having on 14th July stolen from Hongkong in company with Chan A Sam two
Chan Hong pleaded guilty. Chau A Sam not guilty.
when a felony had been committed and there justified in ordering the arrest of any person was reasonable and proper cause for suspecting that the person arrested had committed the felony. The question in this case was whether there was reasonable and proper cause for the arrest of Mason. The law threw the whole of the onus upon the plaintiff, who had to prove that the defendant preferred a charge of a criminal nature against plaintiff before a judicial officer. There was no doubt that defendant did prefer a criminal charge against plaintiff before a judicial officer, a Magistrate. The plaintiff had to prove that the proceedings terminated in his favour. He must also prove that he had suffered in person, reputation and pocket by the bringing of the charge against him. There BEFORE HIS Honour Sir W. M. GOODMAN | children aged eight and four years respectively. was no doubt that he suffered in person; he had not shown that he suffered in pocket; probably. he had suffered in reputation. The next two things he had to prove was that defendant acted maliciously and that he acted without reasonable and proper cause. There was a total absence of reasonable and proper cause for defendant acting in the manner he did. After a few days acquaintance the defendant charged the plaintiff with stealing his watch and chain. and his Lordship was satisfied that there Wax no reasonable and proper cause for
This action, which was fixed for hearing the prosecution. With regard to malicious yesterday (Mor.day) morning, was settled between prosecution. it was difficult to say what the parties a short time before his Lordship motive actuated the defendant in institut-intended to come into Court to hear the case. ing the prosecution against the plaintiff. His only motive was not for the purpose of bringing the plaintiff to justice; it might have been that defendant was displeased with plaintiff. He was satisfied that defendant acted with malicious and improper motives, and he accordingly gave judgment for plaintiff for $500 with costs.
Monday, 15th August.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR T. SERCOMBE
SMITH (PUISNE JUDGE.)
CLAIM FOR COMMISSION.
The adjourned hearing was heard of the case in which Lau Kam Sing sued Tsang Keng for $265.60, being commission on the purchase by the defendant of 9,000 barrels of Portland cement. Mr. E. J. Grist. of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist, solicitors. appeared for the plaintiff. and Mr. H. Hursthouse, of Messrs. Dennys and Bowley. solicitors, for the defendant.
Plaintiff was compradore of Dan Chee and Co. Defendant was a contractor carrying ou business here. Some time in July, 1902, defendant entered into a contract with Dan Chee & Co. for the purchase of 9,000 barrels of cement. He was introduced by the co pradore.
A CLAIM FOR RICE.
The evidence went to show that the prisoners There was down for hearing before His Lord-inveigled the children over to Yaumati, pro- ship the Chief Justice the case of Kam mising to give them fruit, and when they got Tak Tai against A. M. Essabhoy, in which the children over there took them into the the plaintiffs claimed $7.39. being balance country. due for rice sold and delivered. Messrs. Dennys and Bowley, solicitors, were the agents for the plaintiff. and Messrs. Deacon. Looker and Deacon, solicitors, for the defendants.
Tuesday. 16th August.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
|
&
The jury returned a verdict of guilty as libelled.
The Attorney-General said there was previous conviction for kidnapping against the first prisoner.
His Lordship said it was a pity he had not been deported.
The Attorney-General put in a previous conviction against the first prisoner for kid- napping.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR T. SERCOMBE SMITH would sentence the prisoner to two years' im-
(PUISNE JUDGE.)
SCIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY DEPOSITED.
Chan Kan Sing sued Ngai Leung Choi for the return of $250. being money paid on deposit. Mr. P. W. Goldring, solicitor. of Mr. John Hastings's office, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Otto Kong Sing. solicitor, for the defendant. Mr. Goldring stated that the money had been deposited under an agreement for the purchase of certain land in the New Territory. The contention was that a proper title for the land was not furnished. When the money had been paid over. enquiry into the documents showed that no Crown lease had been granted in respect of the property.
His Lordship, after hearing the evidence. reserved judgment.
+
Thursday, 18th August.
IN CRIMINAL JurisdictION.
(CHIEF JUSTICE)
The Chief Justice in passing sentence said the first prisoner had already been convicted for kidnapping a child. He evidently made a trade of this sort of thing. On the first charge he
prisonment with hard labour, and on the second charge to three years' imprisonment with hard labour; and he would ask the police to take note that these terms of imprisonment would run cousecutively--that was, five years altoge ther. He could have got fourteen years, but his Lordship did not think it would do any good to give him that; and he thought the Colony would be well rid of him. In his opinion the prisoner should be deported at the end of his term. His Lordship was sorry that he was not able by law to order the prisoner to be flogged. He sentenced the second prisoner to two years' imprisonment with hard labour.
CHARGE OF ASSAULT.
Tong Yau Tak was charged with having assaulted Man Tim Kau.
He pleaded not guilty, and said that he was first assaulted by the complainant, and struck him back again.
The following jury was empanelled :-Messra, J. Cruikshank, R. Israel, F. A. Brown, J. Smith. E. Meyer, C. H. Lammert, and W. B.
and the compradore claimed from him in respect BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR W. M. GOODMAN Boyce. of that purchase commission at the rate of one-half per cent. on the price. There was no specific contract to pay this money, but there. was the usual custom of the trade here, and the custom was that where a Chinese firm was
introduced to a firm carrying on business here through a compradore. and the compradore guaranted the contract. he should be entitled to charge the purchaser a percentage on the purchase.
The defence was that it was not a question of custom with Chinese in these matters. but
whether it was in consonance with British law and reasonable in this case, as the plaintiff had had nothing to do with this contract being entered into and did not even act as interpreter at the introduction.
Owing to the absence through sickness of one of the witnesses for the defence. Mr. Wright, the hearing was adjourned when up for hearing last.
Mr. Hursthouse put in the affidavits with respect to Mr. Wright, who is not yet out of hospital.
The defendant gave evidence to the effect that when he made the bargain to buy the cement he did not consult the defendant, nor did he employ him in any way in the trans. action, or promise him commission.
His Lordship, after hearing the evidence, found as
facts that the compradore did not introduce the customer to the firm of Dan Chee, Son, & Co.. nor become surety for Tsang Keng, and that there was no contract between the parties. An attempt was made to
|
CHARGE OF CHILD STEALING.
Chau Hong, a middle-aged Chinaman, was charged with having on 28th December stolen a seven years old boy named Li Mau Lam with intent to deprive the mother. Chan Yan, of the possession of the child.
He pleaded not guilty, stating that he was not in Hongkong but in Singapore at the time. The following jury was empanelled :- Messrs S. A. Seth. T. Browne. A. B. Rouse. E. H. Ray. W. F. Gardner, G. W. Binder, and J. W. Crouch.
Hon. Sir Henry S. Berkeley. Attorney General, appeared for the Crown (instructed by Mr. F. B. L. Bowley. Crown Solicitor). In his opening statement he said that while the boy was playing about in the street prisoner came up to him and asked him to go to the theatre. The boy went with him, and was taken over to Kowloon, where he was detained for five days by the prisoner, after which the prisoner took him to Samchun City and sold the boy for 860. About three weeks afterwards the mother learned of the whereabouts of her child, and on going to Samchun found the boy there. She informed the police, and the prisoner's father was arrested. On 20th July prisoner was found at Shatin.
Prisoner's defence was that it was a case of mistaken identity so far as he was concerned that he was at Singapore at the time. The purchaser stated that he thought he was buying
The Attorney-General said the prisoner was charged with wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. Prisoner and complain. ant were neighbouring fariners at Santin. Complainant said that on the day in question they were both working in the fields when the defendant cut a hole in the boundary bank to let the water run into his fields. Prisoner expostulated, whereupon the prisoner came at him with a chopper and chopped him, cutting off two fingers. The wounded man Was taken in a semi-conscious state to the Civil Hospital. Prisoner's account before the Magis- trate was that the thing was an accident and that he inflicted the wound in self-defence. The medical evidence showed that the character of the wound was such as to lead to the conclusion that prisoner had inflicted it with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
The wounded man had been in hospital for 68 days and had not yet properly regained the use of his injured leg.
The jury found the charge proven, and his Lordship passed sentence of 18 months' impri
sonment with hard labour.
EMBEZZLEMENT.
Cheung Tak Hang, alias Cheung Chuk Yu, was charged with embezzlement, entering forged receipt for money (two counts), and obtaining property upon forged instruments (two counts). He pleaded guilty to obtaining, by false pro- tences, the sum of $261,50.
The Attorney-General withdrew the other two charges.