August 25, 1906.]
man charged with bribery to be able to prove any hing whatsoever against the person charg. ing him, because being an offence which was necessarily done in secret there was no suspicion raised if there were very few witnesses called to swear to the material points on which the charge was based. He would call for the defence,
Assez Doon, watchman at the Wingchai Wharf who said the defendant was his brother. The contractor did not at any time take him a gold coin as he stated in his evidence.
|
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
Mr. Gardiner-The defendant has seen mé and offered installments which I am not prepared to accept. He has offered to pay $20 a month.
His Lordship-Well, if you refuse to take installments I cannot allow them. Judgment and costs for plaintiff, less amount of interest claimed.
NOT THE MAN.
Sudha Singh claimed from Ah Hau the sum of $30. money lent the defendant on January 15th.
Mr. J. H. Gardiner appeared for plaintiff, and defendant appeared in person.
The bailiff reported that the defendant was pot Ab Han, the man to whom the money was loaned.
Cross-examined-He did not intend to, neither did he remit any money to India in June or July. He intended to go to India next year, but was not going to take his money in gold. He was quite sure the contractor did not offer him a sovereign. Prior to seeing the Mr. Gardiner I have a witness to prove that man at the Police Court he did not know him.
this man, although he disclaims the name of Ah When counsel had addressed the Court, his Hau, is known by that Dame. I also Lordship gave the jury a summary of the facts, have B letter from the China Sugar and that body retired. After au absence of Co., stating that the defendant is engaged thirty-five minutes they returned, and the fore-there as a boilermaker or fitter, and that he is man announced that the jury was unanimous in known by the name of Ah Hau. finding the prisoner guilty.
His Lordship-On the report of the bailiff I could not give you judgment.
Mr. Gardiner-The defendant has given a false name. I'd ask your Lordship to bear that in mind.
His Lordship sentenced the prisoner to imprisonment with hard labour for two years.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE ME A. G. WISE (PUISNE
JUDGE).
A SOLICITOR'S COSTS. Mr. O. D. Thomson, solicitor, sued Lo Yee- Wo, a trader, to recover the sum of $548.25, being balance due for work done and money expended as defendant's solicitor.
Mr. J. H. Gardiner (of Mr. O. D. Thomson's office) appeared for plaintiff, and the defendant, who is a prisoner, appeared in custody of B warder.
Defendant admitted the debt.
His Wordship-What's he in for now? Mr. Gardiner--Another debt of $2,000 due to Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist in the same sction.
His Lordship Well, you don't want immediate execution.
Mr. Gardiner-No, my Lord.
His Lordship-All right. He can go back again.
Judgment was entered for plaintiff with costs,
Wednesday, August 22nd.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION. Before Mr. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE).
INDIANS AND INTEREST.
Prem Singh saed Lo Fuk-tsung to recover the sum of 8288, being as to 8250 due under a promissory note dated January 2nd, 1906, with interest thereon, and as to $33 due under promissory note dated June 13th, 1906.
A
Mr. J. H. Gardiner (of Mr. O. D. Thomson's
office) appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. E. J. Grist (of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist) represented defendant.
Mr. Grist admitted the liability under the notes, but stated that they did not carry nterest.
His Lordship-I have not seen them,
Mr. Gardiner-No interest is specified on the notes, but I maintain that it is due on both at current rates.
His Lordship-You can get 8 per cent. from date of judgment.
Mr. Gardiner In England a promissory
note carries interest.
His Lordship-You cannot get your interest on these. You have had it.
Mr. Gardner-We have not had any interest, your Lordship.
His Lordship-Don't tell me that; I know too well. They arrange interest verbally, and as soon as it is not paid they sue.
Mr. Gardiner In England promissory notes carry interest from four per cent.
His Lordship-That is not what they do bere. Interest is charged at anything from 60 to 80 or 100 per cent., and as long as it is paid the money-lenders are happy. That is the way they work, and they make a good thing out of it. I won't allow interest. Now about in- stallments.
His Lordship-But no evidence has been called to prove it.
Mr. Gardiner-I have a witness here. His Lordship-I don't want that man. I will adjourn the case and you can call the European from the sugar works.
Thursday, August 23rd.
BEFORE MR. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUNGE).
WHOSE WAS THE FENCE?
Lo Kwai sued Ko Ah-che and another to recover the sum of $20, being for damage done by defendants to a fence at Pokfulam belonging to plaintiff.
Mr. R. F. C. Master (of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master) represented the plaintiff, and Mr. Otto Kong Sing appeared for defendants.
His Lordsbip-I don't know anything about this case.
I suppose it refers to a right-of-way? Mr. Kong Sing—Yes, my Lord. We admit pulling down part of the fence, but it is as much ours as theirs.
His Lordship-Well, I will give judgment against the defendants, and the question of damages can be referred to the Registrar. should try the question of damages.
Mr. Kong Sing-I think your Lordship
His Lordship-This Court cannot go into the question as to whether the damage caused by the breaking of the fence is $10 or $15.
Mr. Kong Sing-The case was up at the Police Court on Friday, and a fine of 2 was imposed.
Mr. Master-On the defendants, my Lord. His Lordship-I will refer the case to the Registrar to assess damages, and grant a stay of
execution.
MACAO.
(FROM OUR CORRESPONDENT.
August 22nd.
SMART DETECTIVE WORK.
|
On Monday morning one of your plain-clothes police made an important capture. After a day of enquiries here, he went to Paksan and found a man trying to sell a girl of about fourteen years. By subterfuge he enticed the man to Macao, whers four other men were betrayed by the first, and seized. All five are wanted in connection with the murder of the master and mistress of a coal-boat, in British waters.
MISCELLANEOUS.
*
12
115
FRUITS OF THE COMMISSION.
ANOTHER INSpector arreSTED.
da mbali mba
The charges of corruption being investigated by the Government Commission have led to another arrest. Hubert J. W. Gidley, sanitary inspector, was brought before Mr. H. H. Gompertz at the Magistracy on August 22nd obarged with accepting a bribe of $250 from one Chak Hok-king with a view to in- fluence his conduct as a public servant in relation to the inspection of ground surfaces at certain properties in Queen's Road West and Bonham Strand West on 6th November, 1905, and with accepting a bribe of $50 from the same person on 29th December, 1905.
Inspector Hanson asked for bail of $500, which was forthcoming.
|
The old house in the Rua Central has now proved its uselessness as a jail. A criminal has escaped. The lighting of the city is still bad.- The Bishop Bay reclamation ought to be ex- tended.-The Protestant Cemetery is being neglected since the British Vice-Consulate was clo ed, and is now very untidy.-It is 57 years to-day since the murder of Ferreira d Amaral by
Chinese.
The case was remanded till next Wednesday.
THE CHARGE AGAINST SANITARY
INSPECTOR WARD.
The hearing of the charges of bribery and intimidation preferred against Francis Ward, sanitary inspector, was commenced before Mr F. A. Hazeland at the Magistracy yesterday afternoon. He was charged with accepting bribes in the following sums :- -On August 5th, 1903, 815; December 7th, 1904, $30; and April 19th, 1905, 810, with a view to influence his conduct as a public servant and contrary to the rules of honesty and integrity. He was further charged with unlawfully, and in order to obstruct the dae course of justice, endeavouring to dissuade one, Chan Pai, from giving evidence before the Royal Commission.
Mr. Bowley, Crown Solicitor, conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Grist (of Messrs. Wilkin- Bon and Grist) appeared for the defendant, while the Hon. Dr. Clark and Dr. Pearse were in attendance.
Mr. Bowley, at the outset, asked leave substitute two charges for the first, adding that he would not proceed with the others.
His Worship assented.
The charges were: (1) accepting a bribe of and $30; (2) $10; (3) $10; (4) $15; (5) $20, (6) obstructing the course of justice.
Mr. Grist tendered a plea of not guilty on all charges.
Mr. Bowley, in opening, said-Defendant is a sanitary inspector appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of the Sanitary Board on 1st March, 1904. He was then attached to No. 5 Health District as district inspector, and coutinned in that office till the end of June last year, when he was transferred for one month to
No. 4 Health District. At the beginning of August last year he was transferred to No. 9 Health District and continued to be district in- spector there till May of this year; when he was again transferred to No. 10. As district inspec tor defendant was charged with the duty of inspecting all the public latrines within his district and of seeing that the byelaws relat- ing thereto
with. were strictly complied It was part of his duty to visit each latrine every morning and to see that each was pro- perly cleansed. Defendant was charged with receiving various sums of money from one Chan Pui and, on the sixth charge, with en- deavouring to dissuade Chan Pui from giving evidence before the Sanitary Commission. Chan Pui is the owner and lessee of a number of latrines in the Colony, and his eldest son, Chan Tsun, managed the business for him. In the course of that oc upation he fre- quently came io contact with sanitary inspectors. Your Worship will see that Chau Tsun going to these latrines to collect the money and the sanitary inspectors going there to see that they were clean would frequently meet, and any orders given by the inspector would have to be carried out by Chan Trun. Amongst the latrines which he manages is that at No. 2, Gough Street, in No. 5 Health District. This is the one referred to in the first and secon i charges. Chan Tsun will tell you that he became acquainted with Inspector Ward owing to their having met in connection with this latrine, and that on 7th December, 1904, he made a payment of $30 to defendant in his house. Complainant will tell you why he gave that present and what he intended to get for it. The second charge relates to 19th April, 1905, on which date complainant will tell you that in con- sequence of a message he had received and in