132
FRUITS OF THE COMMISSION.
INSPECTOR WARD COMMITTED FOR TRIAL.
The bearing of the charges of bribery and attempting to obstruct the course of justice, preferred against Inspector Francis Ward, of the Sanitary Department, was concluded before Mr. F. A. Hazeland at the Police Court on August 27th,
Mr. F. B. L. Bowley, Crown Solicitor, prosecuted, and Mr. E. J. Grist (of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist) appeared for defendant.
Mr. A. Carter, Sanitary Surveyor, was called. He said-On March 1st, 1904, defendant was appointed as a district sanitary inspector, and was placed in charge of No. 5 district.
|
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
family house." He asked me to go in and tell him to come out, which I did. My master came and spoke to the defendant at the entrance to the lane. I did not hear what was said On this occasion defendant spoke to me in Chinese, I do not understand English, and have been in the Colony only three or four months.
Chief Detective-Inspector J. W. Hanson said-I arrested defendant under the warrant produced on the 15th instant at No. 1, Chater Street. I know the branch office of the Sanitary Board on Pokfulam Road, and the defendant's house. In going from the office to his house the defendant would pass within about twenty paces of Chan Pui's door.
This ended the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Grist--I propose to reserve my defence and address your Worship very shortly principally with reference to the sixth charge. Apart from all the questions of fact in the matter, that is no offence against the Common Law, nor is it an offence against any of the Ordinances. That being so, I should ask that that charge, at any rate, be dismissed.
Chan Pui, sworn, said-I live at No. 2, Water Street, which is my family house. I am the owner and lessee of several latrines in Hongkong. One is at No. 3, Sau To Lane, one at 29, First Street and one at 2, Gough Street. My son, Chau Tsun, manages these latrines. Account books with regard to them are kept by my son, who also receives the money from the collectors. He likewise sees that the limewashing or repairing of the latrines is carried out. On June 22nd I was summoned to attend the Commission and take my books. This (produced) was the subpoena served on me by a European sergeant. My son was not in the house at the time. After I was served I went to the Detective Office with my books, and afterwards to the Commission. I have no partners in the latrine business, I and my son are the only two persons interested in it. I know the defendant, who is a sanitary inspector. He called at my house on June 23rd at about 7 p.m. Prior to that time I had seen him passing my door. When he called, a man surnamed Wong came with him. They both entered and sat down. The defendant spoke in English, and Wong acted as interpreter. No one else was present. The interpreter interpreting for defendant said“ Tell your son to go to the country, then there will be no trouble. I will look after your latrines." Wong then said-"It is written in the book that money has been given to the inspector (defendant)." That was the reason they (wanted my son to go away. When they were going away the defendant shook hands with me and said Chin-chin." | next Criminal Sessions. Bail as before. He also said, in Chinese-" If your son goes away I will look after your latrines." I said in reply" Yes, please you look after me.'
Mr. Bowley-I submit that the charge is good in law. It is an offence against the Common Law to prevent witnesses attending to give evidence before a duly constituted tribunal. The Royal Commission was appointed by the Governor to enquire into the workings of the sanitary ordinances, and has all the powers and status of a court of justice.
His Worship, after referring to the authority quoted said he thought the offence would be" to incite a person to conspire with the defendant to pervert justice". He thought that would be a common law offence.
11
Mr. Bowley-Were you pleased at the suggestion that your son should go away to the country?
Mr. Grist-His impressions are not evidence, your Worship, one way or the other.
Mr. Bowley-Were you willing that your son should go away?
Mr. Grist again objected.
Mr. Bowley-I submit it is evidence, your Worship.
His Worship allowed the question. Witness-No.
Mr. Grist--It would be if the Commission W88 not a private one, but being so it is a misconception entirely.
His Worship-On that point the evidence is prima facie, and it is quite sufficient for me to send the case for trial.
Mr. Grist-I only put it forward to give my friend full notice. There is no question of perverting justice. The Commission is simply drawing up a confidential report not to be published.
His Worship-It is a common law offence to pervert justice; also a common law offence to incite another person to conspire with another person to pervert justice
Defendant was committed for trial at the
THE CHARGES AGAINST INSPECTOR
H. J. W. GIDLEY,
|
[September 3, 1906,
laid down that ground surfaces of any domestic building should be properly covered over with a layer of not less than six laches of good lime or cement conerate. Section: 112 required the owner of any domestic building to keep the ground surfaces in repair, and if it became damaged in any way to make it good. During the months of November and December the defendant inspected a very large number of ground surfaces within his district, which comprised a considerable part of Queen's Road West, and he thought the whole of Boaham Strand West. Before inspecting, that was to say! examining oritically, the ground. surface of any house, the inspector obtained a sort of warrant from either the secretary of the Sanitary Board or the Medios! Officer of Hasith. That was under No. 1 of the bye-laws in the schedule of the Ordinances, which stated that the secretary of the Board should furnish inspectors with a general authority in writing, in English and Chinese, to enter buildings and examine them. The defendant obtained s number of warrints from the Medical Officer of Health at different times during these months, and Mr. Bowley would call before his Worship a witness whose name appeared in the charges as Chak Hok-king, but who was better known by his shop name of Lik Kee. He W83 8 contractor, and would tell his Worship that some time in October a house owner or occupier showed him one of the notices alrealy mentioned about concretin z Seeing that this notios referred to the defend. ant, Lik Kee went to his quarters and saw him. They then mutually recognised the fast that they had both been at Queen's College at the same time, and some riendly conversion ensued. Then the contractor told the defend- ant he wanted some jobs in connection with sanitary work, and the defendant promised the contractor that he would get jobs for him, sad told the contractor that he must remember him.
Mr. Wilkinson-If this witness has given any evidence before the Commission I should be supplied with a copy. It is only fair that I should have a copy.
Mr. Bowley-This cas) has nothing whatever do with anything that came before the Commission.
Mr. Wilkinson-I would ask your Worship to direct the Crown Solicitor to furnish me witu
copy of that evidence.
His Worship-I think you had better apply to the Government.
Mr. Bowley-This case has nothing to do with the Commission. I am not going to r›før to any evidence given before the Commission.
Bis Worship-If you can get it from the Crown well and good, but I don't see how you can ask me to make au order.
The hearing of the charges of bribery pre- ferred against Inspector Hubert J. W. Gidley of the Sanitary Department was continued before Mr. H. H. J. Gompertz at the Police Court Mr. Bowley-I am conducting this cas) in on August 29th. The charges were that the ordinary way without reference to the the defendant did on November 6th, 1905, | Commission, and I am afraid I cannot assist my unlawfully accept from Chak Hok-king a bribe | friend in any way. of $250 with a view to influence his conduct as such public servant in relation to su inspection of the ground surfaces of 136 to 148 Queen's Road West, Nos, 3 and 5 Queen's Road West
Mr. Bowley-Did you send him away to the and Nos. 8 and 10 Bonbam Strand West; country?
Witness-No.
Continuing, witness said-I saw defendant on June 25th at the latrine in Sau Po Lane. I was shut for by Lo Long-hing, the person. in charge of that latrine. This was about
8.m.,
and I was then in my house, which is next door to the latrine. I met the defenda tat the
וי
>
that on December 29th, 1905, the defendant did accept a bribe of 850 with reference to the ground surfaces of No. 177 Winglok Street and No. 13 Bonham trand West.
Mr. F. B. L. Bowley, Crown Solicitor, prosecuted, and Mr. C. D. Wilkinson (of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist} represented the defendant.
five
been one
|
Continuing, Mr. Bowley said that this con. tractor, Lik Kee, made su appointment with the defendant to meet him at the houss at Hollywood Road and inspect the ground surface with the result that the defendsat condemned the ground surface, and obtained the necessary authority from the Board to have it re conureted, and Lik Kes got the job. That was the commencement of the renewal of their acquaintanceship. After that, the contractor would tell his Worship that he from time to time obtained information in advance from the Sanitary Ofs as to what floors were going to employed a broker to go round to different be inspected, and acting on that inform stion he shops, mostly large Chinese hongs, and to solicit orders in advance for Yik Kes.
His Worship-On the strength of the infor- mation he got from the Board ?
Mr. Bowley-On the strength of the inform (- tin he got from the Sanitary branch office.
entrance to the lane. He was alone. He spoke defendant had held the office of a sanitary Mr. Bowley, in outlining the case, said the to me in Chinese and said—" Your son has not
for some I replied inspector yet gone away. Send him away.'
years, and of had When they do recent years he They have not yet asked me.
of the ask me I will see about it. I did not send my plague inspectors. Plague inspectors were son away, and defendant did not speak to me separated from the ordinary district inspectors, again. I gave evidence before the Commission and each of them had two health districts
under his charge for the purposes on July 2nd.
of Lo Long-hing, declared, said I am plague cases. The alleged bribes were said to iu charge of Chan Pui's latrine at No. 2 have been given in November and December Sau Po Lane. I W&S first employed by respectively, a time when it is believed there Chan Pui in June, 1906, and have been there were no plague cases in the Colony. During ever since. Defendant is the latrine inspector. the winter seasou plague inspectors were He called to inspect sometimes once every day, engaged in a general disinfection and cleansing and sometimes once in two or three days. At of premises within their districts, and amongst times he called by himself and again be would the other duties which the defendant had to have an interpreter with him. He told me once discharge about that time was one of inspecting to call my master. On June 25th, after in-ground surfaces. His Worship was no doubt speating the latrine, he asked me where the aware that under section 11 of the Publicit was to have his shop turned out and the master was. I said—“ My master is at his Health and Buildings Ordinance it was
Mr. Bowley, continning, said the notices were served at the offices of the owner, who is the master of a very well-known and old established firm known as the Yuen Fat hong, which carried on business at Queen's Road West and Bonham Strand West. When these notices of intention to inspect the ground surfaces were served on the Yasa Fat people they became rather excited and annoyed, and if there was one thing a Chinaman disliked more than another
ground surfaces taken up and relaid, Then
*