Page
152
!
I
[September 4, 1905.
he stated that the owners were in Macio and had no intention of disposing of their shares, he wrote from his owa knowledge.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
by Mr. Banner that the man introduced as Lo Kwong Chiu was pockmurkai. It appeared that Moss's Danny and Bwly had bea completely deceived by a number of conspira- Lo Kwong Chin, the plaintiff, said he was tors. In conclusion, Mr. Sharp said he would the fourth son of Lo Chuk Chee and lived at call Messrs Ewers, Hirston and Harling's chief Macio. He was 21 years of age, acording interpreter who witn solt e aigum nt and to the Chin s reckoning. He signed the who had kuown thi funily for 25 years. He deed of assicum ut 'ia Macao His brothers would call the plain iff, who was only a boy, sa were present and sined the document at the his four brothers, som of whom wers older and sime tim Since that time be had never dealt
He had an some younger than plaintiff.
with that share or borrowed money on it. Tuv poaned Mr. Bonner, but he cld not say what signature on the mortgage was not his nor was that gentleman would til the a.
Those it his name. He had a brother Lo Kwong Chan witnesses waud prore that plaintiff wa who was pock marked and a little crazy. This Lo Kwong Chiu, tha p'rson entit d brother had no share in the assignment. He to the share in the as-ignment of January.
had not an unele called Lo Chuk Hio. He 1904. aud they Would proza that heuerer authorised any on to borrow money on hid not made that mortgage in March of this, his share of the property, nor had he received yea". It would be proved that the signature any money for his share. upou the mortgage which p.rported to be his sign itn e was most certainly not his signature. It would be made clear that a daring fr ud had been perpetrat d and that plaintiff was entitled to the relief which he asked, and that the mirt-
plaintiff, The document in question was registered in the Land Office. It was written without plaintiff's knowledge or consent and the signature it bore was a forgery. Plaintiff did not receive the said sum of $26,000 and he claimei that the document be en ell d, asking for a declaration that the signatur was In a forgery and that the document was void. the statement of claim filed by defendant, the latter denied that the plaintiff was a minor. With reference to the paragraph in the claim respecting plaintiff's share of Inland Lot No. 7, the defendant said that a man called L Kwong Chin, whom the defendaut did not admit to be the same person as the plaintiff, was entitled as tenant in common to one fifty share in the lot mentioned and that hi it was registered. Defendant averr d that all the estate and interest of Lo Kwong Chiu was assignel to defendant by au indenture of mortgage, dated 31st March, 195, in consideration of the sum of $26,000, which was then and there paid by defendant to Lo Kwong Chiu. The document was registered in the Land Office by memorial No. 37,54. Regardingiga ba del red a forgery and cancelled. plaintiff's statement that the signature w.ls appended without his consent or knowledge, defendant affirmed that the signature to the mortgage was the true aul genuine signature of Lo Kwong Chin on the execution of the document. Defendant denied that Che document was made ei her without plaintiff's knowledge or conset, or that the plaintiff not received the sum of $26,400,
Continuing, Mr. Sharp sail the facts were of a very simple character. The plaintiff and Lis family lived in Macao, in fact, they were one of the leading families in Macao. About November 1903—he did not think they wers concerned with
j
Evidence was theu cilled.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pollock-His father had all sor ́s of businesses in Macao. He owned a bink and carried on a lottery and fantau farm in Macao. The property in Hongkong was put in his name as it was a gift from his father. He did not remember how much he had received as his share The money was paid into the Po Hung Bank in Macao to the credit of bimself and his brothers. He had not drawn anything from the bank, nor had his father. He paid 100 d l'ars last month for his expenses in the
it to them. He did not know exactly wh ther his father had any p operty in Macao or not.
He did not know whether his father way
expected to be sued or not.
His Lor's'ip observed that up to a certain point both cases wore the sam3.
Mr. Sharp submitted that all they had to prove. and they had abundant evidence to establish it-that the person execu ing that mortgage was not Lo Kwong Chiu at all. IỀ His Lordship was satisfied that that man did not execute that mortgage, but that it was executed by some one i opersuating him, the d-fenda it mast prove that he had the authority of plaintiff. Mr. Pollock he'd that the onus of proof was ou the other side.
Sin Tak Fan said he knew Lo Chuk Chee and his sous. In November. 1903, witness received instructions from Lo Chuk Chee to prepare an a signment of Inland Lot No. 7 for $230,000 in thn me of his three sons. Subfamily huse. His father bought it, and gave squently he give the names of the other two sons hadtbe added to the assignment. He had to make oit the assignment in equal shares to the fiva SIUS. Witness preparad a draft (produced) and an assignment was executed pursuant to that draft os 6th March in Macao. Witneswentover to Macao with Mr. Harding and obtained the signatures of the vendors, afterwards proceeding paint. in order to succeed must prove that the Mr. Pollok agred, but contended that to the father's house wher he got the signaturesi nature was a fo-gry and written without of the fire son. He pointed out the signature of Lo Kwong Chiu on the assignment, which his authority or consent. He had to prove an he had witnessel. He knew L Kwong Chiu equity to have the mortgage set asi·le. personally, and also knew In Kwong Chan. another son who was pock marked. The signature on the mortgage was not Lo Kwong Chin's. The characters were different and would sound Lo Wong Chun. The two last characters w re differ in character and meaning to those of plaintiff's name. In the so-called mortgage the nam was written in foreigu fashion from left to righ!. W tuess then spoke to Mr. Bauer calling at the offic, and requesting the loan of the draft assignment. telling him that Lo Kwong Chiu was borrowing money on his share. Witness toll him that Lo Kwong Ching was a miuor. He gava Mr. Bonn the draft-and afterwirls wrote to Mr. Lo Chuk Chee informing him of what he had heard In consequence he received a felegram from plaintiff's father and, upin its receipt. hs wrote to Messrs. Dnurs and Bowl-y. Mr. Banner came to the office next day and 10'd him the mortgage had bent through. Mr. Bonner informed him that the person who signed as L Kwong Choo was pock market. Some The plintiff was Lo Kwong Chiu. brokers introduced the alleged Lo Kwong Ch'n to them. Mr. Bonner informed him that ho had advised defendant not to lend the money and defendant hd givon Messrs. Dennys and Bowley a letter exonerating them as to any consequences
1
Cross-xamination resumed-You say you heard your father read the letter on th evening of 23rd March? —Yes.
What was it? The letter said I was borrow. ing money.
What did your father say?-He asket if I was borrowing or unt and I said I was not.
I want to ask you about Lo Kwong Su. What about his sba e?-He has not got his share.
When did he dispose of it ?-Some time ago. What time?—I don't know anything about his affairs at all.
any earlier date--plaintiff's fhr Lo Chak Chee purchased some property in Hongkong for five of his 80DF. inc'uding the plaintiff, for $230,000. Upon the 6th January, 1904-be thought that was practically the ou y date which would c ncern the inquiry-the property was assigned, pursuant to that purchas, to the plaintiff and his four brothers. The assignment was executed at the fath rs house in Macao in the presence of Mr. R. A Harding and in the presence of Mes-rs Ewans, Harston and Hard- ing's senior interpreter. Tuis was in due course registered in the Lan ( Office. All this was, he thought, common ground. Toe next date was March 31st of this year when that forgery was perpetrated, the facts of which they would prove. On the morning of March 31st this year Mr. Bonn r went to the office of Messrs. Ewo is, Harston and Harding to borrow a draft uf the assignment of January, 1904. Mr. Boun r said that he wished it for a mortgage which was being prepared in his office for Lo Kwong Cain's share of the property in question with a view to borrowing $26,000 upon it. Verylittle passed on that cecasion, but Mr. Bonner was informed that Messrs. Eweus, Harsto and Harding knew nothing of the alleged mort gage and
that Lo Kwong (hui was a minor. Mr. Bonner went away with the draft assignment, but Messrs. Eweus, Harston and Hading bing uneasy as to wha they had just heard wrote to the father in Macao informing him of what they had heard, This was on Friday, March 31st. n the atu day morn- ing the firm received telegram from the father; in consequence of which they wrote at ouce to Messrs Dennys and Bowley the followingletters Telegraphic instructions have been received from Macao that Lo Kwong Chiu is iu Macao and that some one is attempting t› impersonatedge. With regard to the second. L. Krong San.mny was depos ̈ted? At the Portuguese him to raise money on the property. The other four brothers are also in Macao and have no intention of disposing of their shares. Pleas take notice that we are acting for all the sons. Later on the same day they wrote a supplementary letter to the same parties, statin that they had been instruc'ed to have the mortgage set asid Between the writing of those two letters Mr. Bonner went across to Messrs. Ewens, Harst n Harding's office a dtll them that the mort- gage had been put through the previous day. In spite of the prompt action taken by Messrs. Ewens, Harston and Harding they were 100 late to prevent the documeut going through. Mr. Bonner sail that the man Lo Kwong Chin had been introduced to them by Lothuk Hin, who was represented as plaintiff's uncle. Counsel said he would prove that Lo Kwong Chịu had no such nucle." It was further stated
*
.
4:
1
Cross-examin d by Mr. Pol'ock Lo Chuk Chee was also ko wn as Lo Kau, and he
Do you know to whom he conveyed it?—It was traufe red to his mother, Lo Lung Shi,
Did he do it of his owu accord-Yes Have you sen defendant at your father's honse? – No.
Question repeated I saw him in my stepmother's house after the loau.
Did you hea him speking to your father ?-- Yes.
advanced the whole of the $230,0 0, the parchase | Did you hear your father say he had recovered money of Inland Lot No. 7. Lo Ling Ying, the the sun of $9,300 - Yes. first of the sons, on the assinment was of full |
wi'ness was not sara whether he was full age oʻ not. Lo Kwong Chin was under age. Io Kwong San had transferred his share to his mother, ai if by sale. Lo Kwong Chau, the pock markel s.
was by the same m the as Lo Kwoug San. There were rumours of the! son borrowing, and the transfer wa< made to his mother to prevent his squanderin rit. Tis father gave witness ins'ructi ns but was was no party to the transfer. Similar instruc. tions were not given respecting Lo Kwong Chiu, who was the son of on of the father's many concubines.
This action was brought at the instince of Le Kwong Chiu to have his share clear. Witness then stated tha' he wat asked by telegram to "stop the transaction if possible The telegram was, in the Chinese commercial code. Witness kept no copy of the let'er, which was only a private letter. When
Did you hear your father say where this
Bank.
Did you hear your father say in whoss name it was deposited?—I did not.
Where is your father now? In Macao. He has been over to Hongkong lately? – No, Are you sure about that? Positive. When did you see your pock marked brother last ?-About two months ago.
Re-examin d-You father recovered $1,300. Do you know how?-A man was arrested on the Hongshan Wharf at Macao.
Do you k`ow who he was?-His name was Tsoi Lin Po.
And the polics were on the look out for this man from Hougkong? -Yes.
He was arrested and the magistrate gave this
Yea. money to your father ?
This Chinaman was one of the two conspira. tors mentioned in the telegrain ?—Yes.