42
His Lordship-Mr Thomson should have been here. You had better tell them you are applying for judgment. If that is all right let me know and I will give you costs to-morrow. Make out an affidavit of facts and serve notice if you can.
on
LEUNG YEE V. H. D. NORONHA.
The plaintiff in this action suel the defen- dant for $484.84, being the principal and interest a promisory note made on January 8th 1904. Mr R. Harding appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. T V. Steavenson for the defendant.
The plaintiff said-On the 8th January 1904 the defendant gave me this promissory note. I have demanded payment a number of times, the last time being on the 16th December.
Cross-examined-I demanded payment at his office opposite the King Edward Hotel. I saw him personally. I know Leung Chung; he was my father; he is dead. He died on the This money was ad. 2nd February 1904. vanced in Wellington Street, at my father's house. The def ndant, when I applied for payment, put me off for a month and said he It was selling houses, and would then pay. was my own money.
The defendant--I did not lorrow $381 in January last as stated, but signed a promissory note. Originally I borrowed some money and the interest went on accumulating till at last I gave this promissory note. I handed that note to Leung, who in 1901 lived in that road going from Lyndhurst Terrace, and sub- sequently in Wellington Street, where I gave him that promissory note Several relatives of Leung came to my office in July and demanded payment of the money I borrowed. They told my Leung was dead and wanted me to pay some of the money I owed--for house and funeral expenses.
Cross-examined-I will swear that when I sigued this promissory note the man I saw was not the plaintiff; it was a stout old man whom I had dealings with on several occasions. Origi- nally the debt was for $180.
By the Court-I did give a promissory note and do owe the money to someone.
His Lordship ordered that the defendant and plaintiff be faced, and told the interpreter to tell the plaintiff what the defendant had said.
The plaintiff-He gave me the note and I gave him the money.
The defendant-I never saw the plaintiff before December last, when he came to my office for the first time,
The plaintiff-The last time was in December His Lordship One of you is making a misstatement as to fact. Who wrote this note? The plaintiff My younger brother who is at the electric light works at Hunghom.
His Lordship-You can have judgment for the defendant or an adjournment.
Mr. Steavenson-I informed Mr. Harding that the man was dead.
His Lordship said it was a very serious case; he would remand it for a week. Then, ad- dressing the defendant-They have got this note; you have to pay to someone. What is the use of all this?
Tuesday, 17th January,
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE SIR H. S. BERKELEY (CHIEF JUSTICE).
SIN FUK HING LUNG FIRM v. CHUNG LAI
(HIN.
:
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
wrongful dismissal. Mr. Almada e Castro ap- I prared for the plaintiff, and Mr. P. W. Gold- ing (of Mr. G. K. H. Brutton's office) for the defendant company.
[January 23, 1905.
would have been a serious collision if I had not taken over charge.
By the Court-Our tonnage was 286.
said: I Chi Lai Chuen
am``managing The plaintiff said-I am a master mariner director of the defendant company. My reasons I took command of the 88 Chu Kong on the for dismissing the plaintiff were that he came 1st July, 1904, in Manile, and bro ght the ship in collision with vessels several times; he drank the smell of drink about him. to Hongkong. She is a British-owned craft, regis- and had
drank Once when he
much at Teamshui t red at Hoogkong. When I arrived bere I was engaged to run the vessel on the West River trade, he said he would drive the quartermasters and all ashore. I did not hear him say my salary being $200 per month. I continued in command from the 1st August till the 30th this myself, but it was reported to me. November last, when I received a letter noti- | I told him if it occurred again I would dismiss fying me that my services were not required. him. That was about August or September. I I interviewed received reports frequently. I once gave the I received no previous notice. Mr. Chi Lai Chuen, the manager of the captain permission to take one person up river He took a number of men Company, asking him why he had dismissed me, free of charge. He replied that one of the other owners had a and a number of women, the men paid and friend whom he wanted to go captain. He gave the women did not. The captain had no no other reasons, and when I asked if he had business to take more than one person free of anything.against me he said "No." After that charge. I have never seen the plaintiff lying I gave up command of the ship. A new master down with drink, but I have seen him make weak steps, and he has smelt strongly of he assured me that it
was all boarded that same day, but this man went ashore again shortly afterwards, and the manager came drink; on board. The latter, at the Harbour Master's right so long as he did not get drook. Office, asked me to go for another trip up river. I did not hand the letter of dismissal to the I refused, as I had been discharged. He then plaintiff myself. offered me $50 to do so, but I still refused. Then he offered me $100 to go, and I told him if he would give me three months' pay in lieu of notice I would take dismissal and take the ship on that trip. That is the custom.
His Lordship Is that so ?
Mr. P. W. Goldring-I understand from the ITarbour Master that that is the established custom, My Lord.
His Lordship-An employer, need not give his reason for summarily dismissing an em- ployee at the time of dismissal, but he must give them in Court if sued, and the grounds must be gord. You need not tell your servants
why" if it be good.
64
Plaintiff continuing-I have never received any complaints of any description from either the owners or manager during the time I was in their ship.
By the Court--I have never been drunk on до grounds to board the ship. There are complain of my behaviour either afloat or on shore.
Cross-examined-I received the letter of dismissal on the 30th November. It was hand- ed to me by the manager of the Company in his own office. An action was brought against me by my steward in respect of provisions in October last, when judgment was given against me for $69.
Mr Goldring-Were there 228 glasses of whisky supplied to yu between the 1st and 23rd of October ?-Yes, supplied to me and
sixteen passengers.
His Lordship-I do not believe he consumed 228 glasses of whisky.
Plaintiff-Included in those 228 glasses were orders for treating passengers aud Custom
House officers.
Mr. Goldring-Here is the chief enginner's book, My Lord.
His Lordship-That has nothing to do with the case; I do not allow it. The captain's bo k does not show anything; the captain may have been hospitable.
On two
|
4
Cross-examined-That excursion passage was not mentioned to me about a week before, nor dil I ever give permission that lady passengers might be carried free.
Mr. Goldring also called a Chinese.tallyman, the second engineer and the ship's compradore; and afterwards asked for an adjournment to call further evidence, a European witness.
His Lord hip-No; it would be dangerous in the extreme, and it would have no effect on me to call witnesses at this stage for a specific purpose.
Mr. Goldring, before reviewing the evidence, said that such a firm as the defendants-owners of two or more steamers-would not put up false witnesses and run the risk of perjury for such a paltry sum as $600. Mr. Chu Lai Chuen was a shareholder in several local companies. The quantity of drink consumed on board was excessive. The Court, he knew. was prone to believe Europeans b›fore anyone else, but
His Lordship-It makes no difference to me. I value evidence according to the way it is given to me. What is very strongly in my mind is that if you had a reasonable cause you said nothing to that effect in your letter. That letter is of very grea' importance, and was written by your authority. The evidence is not of very great weight, as all the witnesses are in your employ to day. It oc urs to me that if you had really had this cuse when you dismissed him you would have said that you could not stand such conduct any longer. It comes to this—you can- -not turn a mn on to the street at a moment's notice and deprive him of his breed.
Mr. Goldring-We have offered, on learning of his circumstances, to give him some money, but deny all responsibility.
His Lordship-But he has his professional reputation to maintain.
the
Shortly after Mr. Almada e Castro com. menced to address the Court His Lordship stopped him and gave judgment as follows:-I do not think that the defendants have just reason for the dismissal of this master By the Court-The passengers were all mariner. Though it is quite true that a Europeans; this book refers to several trips master may dismiss a servant without giving any reason, and may subsequently justify -three trips a week for three weeks.
his action by proving good reason, occasions we had sixteen passengers.
Cross-examined-I received no warning what- onus lies on him of proving that there ever. I deny that Chu Lai Chnen warned me actually was good reason at the time of dis. › about my behaviour; what he did say on one missal. A master may justify himself in a 0150 Occasion was not to spend too much money on where good reason exists, but of which he was Ou the 28th not aware at the time of dismissal, but a cause drinks for Custom House officers.
dismissal must have actually August I had a collision with the same com- justifying
This instant pany's s.s. Pak Kong. On that occasion I was existed at the time when a master has dismissed
a servant from is employment. His sober; it was when approaching the wharf in a
typhoon. On the night of the 20th September dismissal is alleged to be on account of intem- I ran into a Chinese torpedo-boat at Kongmoon. perate habits on the part of this master mariner. It seems to me that this was not the She had been covered by another steamer.
real reason The manager of the company When I saw her I went full speed astern. and my ship was s'opped at the time of co'lision. I admitted that when at the Harbour Office was sober then. There was no damage, except he proposed that the plaintiff should go on another voyage, but he refused to go unless ing a slight cut tone of the rails, done by the collision. It is not a fact that I refused to go they gave him three months' pay in lieu of This action on the part of the manager full speed astera when the pilot called my notice. attention to the other vessel; I called the pilot's goes to show that if the interests of the com attention to it. I have never fouled the wharf pany required the instant dismissal of the at Hongkong.
plaintiff they would n t have allowed him to go command of the ship, a further voyage in When no reason for dismissal is given it is
This claim for $120 came on for the first time on the 16th inst. The plaintiffs were absent, and Mr. R. A. Harding, for the defence, asked for judgment for the defendant with costs, Lordship told him to serve notice on the plaintiffs if he could notifying them that he was applying for costs against them.
Mr. Harding called one of his Chinese clerks who said:-Yesterday afternoon I attended at the plaintiff's house in Lower Lascar Road. I took with me a letter. I found the house closed up and a plank nailed across the door.
His Lordship gave judgment for the defen.
dant and costs.
ANDREW CASEY V. THE WING ON STEAMBOAT
CO., LD.
This was a claim for $600 and costs, damages -three months' pay in lieu of notice-for
|
Re-examined-At the time referred to, when I took the ship out of the pilot's hands, there