Page
February 5, 1906:1
pose of buying a site and furnishings for building. It was also reported that 100 Chinese employees of the Kowloon Docks have petitioned the Association to form a branch at Hunghom.
SUPREME COURT.
Monday, January 29th
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE ME. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE).
NOT AN EARLY BIBER.
Mak Yaeh-ting sned Chan Hon-kai for 2896. Mr. E. J. Grist appeared for plaintiff. On the case being called,
Mr. F. P. Hett (of Messrs. Brutton, Hett and Goldring) said-I have been retained by defendant, but have not received any instruct. tions regarding this case; I expect them any moment now. If your Lordship could allow this case to stand over-
Mr. Grist-I will take judgment with a stay of execution and if my friend 18 instructed the case can go into the next list.
The Paisne Judge-Well, prove your case. Mr. Grist-I would rather not; I know nothing about the defendant; he might run away
Mr. Hett-He is a large property owner in the Colony,
Mr. Bonnar-He has been sued for his rates (laughter).
At this stage a olerk handed Mr. Hett a piece of paper, upon perusal of which Mr. Hett said I have been instructed to ask for an adjournment.
The Puisne Judge-Who instructed you, your clerk ?
Mr. Hett-I wrote to the defendant, but he does not get out of bed until three o'clock.
The Puisne Judge-Well, fix the case for the morning, then (laughter). Can he get up early for once?
Mr. Hett thought he could, and the hearing of the action was fixed accordingly.
Tuesday, January 30th
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
}
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
in Hongkong he had £4, and that accounted for his not pressing for payment sooner. When he asked for payment defendant said he was expecting some money from home, and on receipt of it would settle up.
His Lordship-Did you take him to the Police Court P
Witness-No.
His Lordship Did you not take a summons out?
Witness-No.
His Lordship-Why P Witness Because would have me arrested.
81
Mr. Gardiner I'm afraid we will not be able to get any more. The influence of the defendant is too great amongst those who would be likely to help the plaintiff.
His Lordship Who's at the bottom of this action? Somebody's put the plaintin up to it.
Defendant-The plaintiff is a liar.
His Lordship-Yes. They are all liars. T will give judgment for the defendant. To the interpreter) Tell the plaintiff to go home to his friends and not bring these notions any more.
Defendant-Is there no chance of my bring.
was afraid; he said he ing him up now, sir?
His Lordship-Have you had any wages since leaving Kurachi?
Witness-No.
His Lordship-Where did you get the money to send home?
Witness-I borrowed $35 from another Indian.
+
This was the case for the plaintiff.
For the defence, A. E. Borton, sworn, said the plaintiff was an old sepoy in the 127th Baluchis. About three years ago he went to witness, saying he could not get work, and asked the defendant to take him on. Witness engaged him as a syce, and left Kurachi for Hongkong 1st April, bringing the plaintiff with him. He promised to pay the usual wage, but did not fix an amount. He agreed to pay him 20 rupees while in India, but told him that when they got to China he would give him the same wage as other servants received,
His Lordship-When did the first friction arise ?
Witness-It started right away. His Lordship-I know; but have you paid bim anything here?
Witness-Yes, I have paid him up to January.
His Lordship-Why didn't you pay him after that?
Witness-On that day he came to me and said he could not live on 820 a month, and that other officers gave their servants 830 a month.
His Lordship-From your knowledge is that true ?
Witness-No, sir. I called in an officer who the defendant said was paying his servant $30, and that officer said it was a lie.
Witness, continuing, said the plaintiff then asked him to check his clothes; he did s the evening of that day. Plaintiff then asked
BEFORE ME. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE). him to pay him $5, a week's wages, as he
NOT AN EARLY RISER.
The case in which Mak Yaeb-ting sued Chon Hon kai for 8826 again came before his Honour. Mr. E. J. Grist appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. FP. Hett (of Messrs. Brutton, Hett and #Goldring) for defendant. The hearing had been adjourned from the previous day, when some
amusement was created by Mr. Hett stating that his client did not get up till 3 o'clock. Mr. Hett said it would be better for Mr. Grist to prove his case, and this being done judgment was given for plaintiff with costs.
CLAIM OF AN OFFICER'S SERVANT. Kamar Deen, of No. 57, Elgin Road, Kow- loon, sued Lieutenant C. E. Borton, of the 129th Baluchis, to recover the sum of $185, being as to $135 for nine months' wages due, and $50 for return passage to India.
Mr. A. J. Gardiner (of Mr. O. D. Thomson's office) appeared for the plaintiff, the defendant being. durepresented.
.:
The
Kamar Deen said he was engaged three years ago at Kurachi by the defendant as 8 8708 two months later he was promoted to the position of personal attendant. defendant agreed to pay him 15 rupees per month as syce, but on his promotion increased the amount to 20 rupees. When he arrived in Hongkong he was to receive $15 per month and rations, and $5 for clothing.
His Lordship Did defendant say anything about paying your passage back ?
-Plaintiff –He said be would pay it when he discharged me.
Continuing, witness said he could not re- member when he arrived here. Defendant raid him $20, and later $10 and $5. He received the $10 as cumshaw three months ago then defendant went on a shooting expedition some 200 miles beyond Canton. The 85 was an advance for which he asked. When he arrived
wished to leave. Witness gave plaintiff till 12 o'clock on the following day to reconsider his decision, saying that if he did not turn P he would not pay his return passage to India. He also said he would send him $3 due for wages, as plaintiff had got $2 worth of rice from the regimental storekeeper in witness's name. Later, he received a lawyer's letter, and on placing it before the Colonel and relating what had happened, the Colonel told him to see
the case out.
Mr. Gardiner cross-examined.
I
Did you run up any debts in India ?—A few, but not any bad ones.
His Lordship-Did you pay the plaintiff regularly?—Yes,
Mr. Gardiner-Did you borrow $1,000 to go up for an exam. P—Yes, but I have since repaid
it.
Did you agree to pay the plaintiff's passage back to India? I agreed with him that if I went on furlough, or if the doctor said he was ill and must return, that I would pay his passage unless he misconducted himself, in which case he would have to pay his own.
Living in Kowloon is more expensive than in India ? Yes, considerably more.
And your pay here does not go so far as it did there -No. The allowances are not the
same.
Are you sure you have had enough money for requirements? No. There are very few people who have, but I have always paid my debts.
His Lordship-Do you think it is worth your while ?
Defendant-I should like to bring him up. His Lordship What is the use? He has got no money. "I have given judgment for you.
Wednesday, January 31st.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION,
BEFORE Mr. A. G. WISE (PUISNe Judge).
A WIFE'S DRESS. Madame Jay, dressmaker, brought an notion against A. Galluzzi for the recovery of 8105, the price of a dress supplied to his wife. Mr. F. X. d'Almada e Castro appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Hursthouse (of Messrs. Dennys and Bowley) represented defendant.
Mr. d'Almada submitted that, as the dress had been ordered, tried on and scoopted by defendant on December 11th, subject to a few alterations which she desired made, there was an acceptance within the meaning of the law and that defendant was liable.
Defendant's case was that the dress which was required by Madame Galluzzi for the regatta, did not have the desired alterations when sent to her.
His Lordship said he did not wish to arbitrate between the ladies except as a last resource, and he adjourned the case with a view to their effecting a settlement.
Thursday, February 1st.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
2. A. G. W188 ZAINE JUDGE).
AN ABSCONDING PLAINTIFF. W. Alarakia sued Pak Sui-ki for $1,000 due on a promissory note. Mr. F. P. Hatt (of Messrs. Brutton, Hett and Goldring) appeared for plaintiff, and Mr.A. Holborow for defendant.
Mr. Holborow asked that the case be struck
off the list, as the plaintiff had absconded.
Mr. Hett objected to this, stating that although the man was absent he might return. His Lordship-Do you know why he is absent? Mr. Hatt-No.
His Lordship-Well, I do. It is better for him.
Judgment was - accordingly entered for defendant with costs.
A QUESTION of partneRSHIP. The Fung Cheung Wing firm brought an action against the Tse Ting Kwong firm for the recovery of $236-56 for rice supplied. Mr. R. Harding appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. F. P. Hett (of Messrs. Brutton, Hett and Goldring) for defendants.
The claim, which had originally been for $316-56, was for rice supplied to both defendants, who were contractors carry. ing out works at the Dock Yard Extension and Yaumati, but while it was admitted that the rice had been supplied it was denied that the two men were partners.
The case was adjourned ·
Friday, February 2nd
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
MISTRESS AND COOK.
Can you give any reason why, after you paid this man, he should ask you for his wages?- He was always coming to me for advances. He BEFORE ME. A. G. WISE (Puisne Judge). said his people were starving because of the famine in India, and like a fool I advanced him money. I lent him £2 at Singapore, and he returned the amount less $5, which he said he had given to a destitute friend.
His Lordship-Are there any more witnesses ?
!
Mak Alai, a cook, sned Della Huard for $12. being a month's wages.
His Lordship Do you admit owing
money?
}