F-270
~5
defendant had no knowledge of the details of their case. Wong Ka-cheung's relations with the Lai Hing bank were that in 1872 he first became a partner. He was for some years an setive partner, and in 1883 became manag. ing partner. With him in the partnership were associated a number of other people who carried on the business of the firm until 1898 when Wong Ka-cheung, being a very old man, decided to retire, and all the other partners of the firm except one decided to retire with him. His original share was 8600, and for that he received in 1898 $3,000, so that it had been a prosperous firm. The firm then consisted of the one old partner who did not retire, Kwong Hee, and other persons. It had been suggested that the defendant never went out of the Lai Hing, but Counsel would pruve that Wong Ka-cheung transferred the whole of his shares, and call a witness who witnessed the transfer. The question the jury had to decide was not whether there had been any holding out by Wong Ka- cheung, but whether he was a partner in fact, and an admission of partnership was not con- clusive, because he may have made it for all sorts of reasons.
Counsel then proceeded to quote authorities in support of his argument, after which evidence was called and the case adjourned.
Monday, April 9th
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE SIR FRANCIS PIGGOTT (CHIEF JUSTICE).
A PARTNERSHIP DISPUTE.
The trial of the issue to determine whether Wong Ka-cheung was at the presentation of a petition in bankruptcy a partner in the Lai Hing firm, was resumed. Mr. E. H. Sharp, K.C., instructed by Mr. G. H. Bratton (of Messrs. Brutton, Hett and Goldring), appeared for the Official Receiver, and Mr. M. W. Slade, Instructed by Mr. R. A. Harding, appeared for Wong Ka-cheang.
ад
Wong Ka-cheang, under oross-examination by Mr. Sharp, said he retired from the business in 1898. In a recent action he did not file affidavit that he was a banker carrying on business under the style of the Lai Hing firm. That was a mistake on the part of his solicitor, and after the case he advertised in the papers that he had no connection with the firm. His solicitor in that matter was Mr. Wei On,
Mr. Wei On speaks Chinese, doesn't he ?-A little (laughter).
Was this affidavit read over to you before you signed it ?—I don't remember.
Don't you know that every affidavit is read over before you are asked to sign it ?-lt was explained to me before I signed it.
And did you take any objection to it ?—I told the interpreter I was not carrying ou business at the Lai Hing. I was only living there.
And you told him it was not true ?—Yes.
But he made you swear it all the same Yes. Did you tell Mr. Wei On you were not carry. ing on business under the style of the Lai Hing Bank ?-I don't remember. I think I did tell him.
You say since 1898 you have not carried on
business as a banker in the Colony at all P-No. Do you remember that in the same action, in June, 1901, you filed an affidavit that you were carrying on business as a banker ?—No.
Or this other one ?—No.
Are these your signatures ?—They are not my writing.
Mr. Sharp-In the pleadings of this action it is stated that this man is a banker and in his defence he does not deny it. Tell him that.-
Mr. Sharp afterwards said —The case was not heard, my Lord.
** After discussion,
Mr. Sharp said he thought the evidence was strong enough, in view of his positive statements
discredit the statements of the witness. Under fürther cross-examination, witness denied that he had been associated with a syndicate for the promotion of the Canton Hankow Railway, and also denied that in 1904 casahe had said he was master of the Lai Hing Bank.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
April 16, 1906.
Re-examined by Mr. Slade~There was regis- | Police Court. Meanwhile the man had been tration of partners in the Colony. He had him- struck off the list, but on the following week self been registered. The document produced plaintiff appeared before his Lordship and stated was a registration of the partners of the Lai the facts, upon which the Paisae Judge restored Hing. His name appeared on it.
Ma Fa-ting said he was manager of the Lai Hing bank at the time of the bankruptcy. He became manager in July, 1898, when he suo- ceeded Wong Ka-cheung. The 1 tter had no share in the business after that time and took no part in it, although be continued to live on the premises. He paid $20 a month for his board and lodgings. He had correspondence addressed to the shop.
Other evidence was called.
Tuesday, April 10th.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE SIR Francis Piggott (Chier JUSTICE).
A PARTNERSHIP DISPUTE. The trial of the issue to determine whether Woog Ka-cheung was at the presentation of a petition in bankruptoy a partner in the Lai Hing firm was resumed. Mr. E. H. Sharp, K.C., instructed by Mr. G. H. Bruttoa (of Messrs. Bratton, Hett and Goldring), appeared for the Official Receiver, and Mr. H. G. Calthrop, who took the place of Mr. M. W. Slade, instructed by Mr. R. A. Harding, a ppeared for Wong Ka-cheung.
Mr. Slade baving the previous day concluded his address to the jury, Mr. Sharp addressed the jury at length, after which his Lordship gummed up.
The jury, after an absence of twelve minutes, returned with a unanimous verdict that Wong Ka-cheung was not a partner.
His Lordship -Call forward these sight witnesses.
The witnesses came forward, with the exception of one who was absent, when the Chief Justice said-These eight witnesses have been guilty of the most flagrant conspiracy to defraud the alleged partner Wong Ka-cheung. You have each one been guilty of the most corrupt perjury, and in virtue of the provisions of the law which empowers me to deal at once with such cases I commit each of you to prison for
three months.
Mr. Calthrop --Your Lordship will give judgment with costs out of the estate?
Mr. Sharp held that the defendant had only himself Lo blame in making extravagant statements and he ought not to have his costs.
His Lordship-I can only give judgment with costs. My only regret that I cannot make these witnesses pay the costa.
In dismissing the jury, the Chief Justice said they would be struck off the list for two
years.
The witnesses were afterwards removed in custody.
Thursday, April 12th.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE Mr. A. G. WISE (Puisne Judge).
THE WRONG DEFENDANT.
D. R. Captain sued Mrs. D. Meber for $12.10 for goods supplied. Mr. D. Meher attended.
His Lordship (to plaintiff) – You have not got the right person here. (To Mr. Meher)--Are
|
the writ.
;
When the case was called, Defendant said-I was coming to the Court in answer to the summons when I met the plaintiff and had him arrrested.
His Lordship-Yer, I know; on a false charge, to prevent him coming to the Court, Do you not know that to obstruct the administrațion of justice constitutes contempt of court? If this man brings an action for false imprison. ment against you, he will get $100 damages. Were you coming to the Court that day?
Defendant did not answer.
His Lordsbip-Were you coming to the Court that day in answer to the summons P
Defendant-Yes. I understood plaintiff His Lordship-Were you coming to the Court that day at 10 o'clock ?
Defendant-I arrested plaintiff at 9 o'clock. His Lordship-Yes, so as to stop him coming at 10.
Defendant-No.
His Lordship (to_interpreter)-Tell him I don't believe him. I have a very great mind to send him to gaol. I will give judgment against him with costs. If that man brings au sotion against him he will have to pay heavy damages.
THE PEAK TRAMWAY CASE SETTLED.
It has been an open secret that since judgment was rendered in the Peak Tramway L'ase some negotiations have been in progress btween the dis entient shareholders and the Company with a view to a rettlement of the o se, counsel having hinted at the possibility of it being carried ou appeal to the Privy Council. We are in a position to state that all the dissentient shareholders have sold their holdings at $235 per share and that it was a condition of the purchase that the appeal proceedings should be dropped. We understand that these shares carry their propor fon of the undistri- bated profits up to 18th October, 1945, estimated at $35 per share. That being 87, the purchase price represents exactly what was originally offered, viz., $20 per chare plus the dividend.
Tue costs which, according to the judgment, fall on the Tramway Co., are estimated to amount to $10,00), but there are certain untaxed costa, we understand, for which the plaintiffs are liable, so that they are financially a little out of pocket, but consider themselves compen- sated by the fact that the judgment delivered in their favour by His Honour Sir Francis Piggott upheld the principles for which they
contended.
ARMED ROBBERY.
On behalf of the Chinese Government Chief Detective Inspector Hanson appeared for the extradition to China of Chan Kam-chenng. The evidence adduced was to the effect that defendant was connected with a band of brig- ands who raided a village in the Shintoi district of Kwangtung. Themaster of a piece goods shop at Chekhosul said “he held a feast at his family house on the 25th July last. At 11 pm. while he, assisted by his accountant, was making up socounts in connection with the feast, a band of 20 men, armed with long and short firearms, broke into his house. They seized him and his accountant, plased them in a Mr. Meber-The first thing I had was the back room, put a guard over them and to ransack the house. The proceeded summons. I know nothing about the case.
His Lordship-Is the woman under your pro-master began to ory, whereupon
you a married man ?
Mr. Meber-No, my Lord. His Lordship—Well, you are no good. What bave you got to do with this?
tection ?
Mr. Meher-Yes.
His Lordship (to plaintiff)—Well, you had
better see her.
The case was adjourned till next Friday.
OBSTRUCTING THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
A Chinaman, who was sued by his servant for wages due, was severely reprimanded by the Paiane Judge. The action was down for hear. ing three weeks ago, but on the day of the trial defendant had his servant arrested, for laroeuy. The charge was not proved at the
‘one
of the guard struck him over the head with the butt end of a revolver, and told him if he did not keep quiet they would shoot him." The robbers secured money and jewellery to the value of $1,099 and 150 pieces of clothing valued at $1,050, which the rearguard of, the band, consisting of 8) or 40 men, carried away. They also forced an entrance to other, houses, and besides seising other goods kidnapped Weight boys and five girls. After they left witness' shop he heard about 100 shots fred, and when he went outside some time later he dead bodies lying, on the dearo.
0 C