September 2, 1907.]
SUPREME COURT.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT. due to the public. Spectators grumbled if demonstrations. The team themselves, ani stumps were drawn early for any reason, the in lividual players, got on together, and and a captain's orders were cauva-sed aud do get on, we are glad to sir, without this challenged; his choice of tean, club dis-show of acerbity. The non-playing spectator putes, and all sorts of petty details were with leather lungs who keeps bawling debated in the parliament of the sporting foul, foul," and thus disturbing the um- columo. Prince Ranjitsinhji in his book pire, is an unmitigated nui-auce. He is on cricket admitted that "certain obliga- certainly not the sportsman he thinks he tions towards the spectators have to be is, and the sooner his type is subdued, the taken into consideration," and he even went better it will be for sport. so far as to say that captains "are under an obligation to the public to that the match is played in such a way as the public has a reasonable right to expect."
The situation has grown worse since then, aud the "tea interval" is now understood to be lengthened so that captains and other players may write their telegraphic reports and comments for that section of the public which does not pay at the gale, but gets it all for a halfpenny in the morning. Cricket is no longer an affair of "flannelled fools," if it ever was, but an affair of um- breilaed idiots. C. B. FRY says nothing is
seo
more certain than that the attitude of a certain class of spectator of first class cricket matches has become a disgrace to English sport, while a contemporary, dis- cussing the scene at the Middlesex and Lancashire match, says:
"Ply the Gime" is the cry of the Unwashed, who could not play it themselves if they tried. The referee gets a warm time if his decisions are contrary to their liking, and mob law is soon put into force. Professional football is responsible for a good deal of this spirit. The leading association clubs are admittedly run on a money making basis, with every attention paid to the commercial details. And a row wing man is looked on, not as a clever exponent of the game, but as a sure draw with the crowd. That many of these lookers-on know a good deal of the game does not alter the fact. They want the
game according to their ideas.
Who pays the piper calls the tune. Which is quite opposed to the idea of sport, the leading maxim of which is let the best man win.
Yet it is to be noted, that neither the members of the Club nor the public that comes to watch it really "play the game." fond as they are of adjur- ing those who do. In fact they often take charge, and actually interfere with the game. There was the notable instance, quite recently, in the Middlesex and Lancashire match. It had been very rainy and Lords is notoriously a bad pitch in wet weather. The sixpenny gallery yelled out for cricket. The captains and umpires decided that cricket was impossible and drew the stumps, with the result that the irate mob trampled over the pitch and so damaged it that Maclaren refused to play at all on the third day. The fatuous part of the crowd's behaviour is that from under umbrellas it still cried out to the players to "ply the gime" and raised shouts of Good-Bye Cricket, " ironically singing "Auld Lang Syne." Perhaps the provision of muzzles, gags, and manacles, free, and to be used by every spectator who cannot produce a certificate of having passed standard III in the game, might meet the case.
This last suggestion might have been
Tuesday, 27th August.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION
129
His Loriship to defendant)-D, you want to ask any questions.
Defendant-I have a lot to say.
Court he got $161.50 worth of goods. Then he Defendant was then sworn, and told the borrowed $10 from her. He had carried $219.85
worth of earth.
Judgment was entered for plaintiff with costs.
A WIDOW'S DIFFICULTIES,
Chan Chang-pui, trading as the Kwong Wine Shing at 180, Wellington Street, sought to recover from Ngan Sbi. widow, of 248 Holly- wood Road the sum of $535, being as to $50 principal and $35 interest.
Mr. H. Hursthouse (of Messrs. Dennys and Bowley) appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. S. W. Tso for the defendant.
Plaintiff said he lend the defendant $500 on
BEFORE MR. A. G. WISH (PUISNE JUDGE). October 19th, 1905, and she gave him a note of
Action
A DISPUTED LOAN.
was brought by Leung Lok-cho to recover from Chiu Tenn ting the sum of $20 ), money lent on March 13th.
Mr. F X. d'Almada e Castro appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. R. A. Harding for the
defendant.
Plaintiff said defendant borrowed the amount claimed on March 13th, giving in exchange a stamped d-cument, The money was paid to defendant by one of plaintiff's fokis who had since sailed for Australia. Witness had applied for the money many times, but had always been put off.
Defendant did
lived in Hillier street for six or seven years. In cross-examination plaintiff said he had H was engaged in the matting business, but did not ship coolies to America. not lend witness $200 on February 28th.
Mr. Harding-Will you explain how it is that in the document you produce you don't mention the amount was advanced as money lent?-We were friends.
But you know in a document like that it is generally stated why the money was advancod? -It is a stamped document.
And has only a firm's chop on it?-I trusted to defendant adding his signature. We Chinese trust each other.
You know the defendant has been in business here for nearly 30 years?-Yes.
And keeps a large seamen's boarding house? Yes.
Didn't you have a quarrel with him by reason of his turning off the 8.8. Dakota certain stowa- ways you sent aboard?-No.
Mr. Harding said the defence was that the defendant lent the plaintiff $200, which was a loan for a week only. No receipt was given for it, but the money was not repaid, although the defendant had applied for it many times.
Defendant told the Court he made a loan of $200 to the plaintiff, and produced his firm's book showing the entry. The amount was not repaid at the end of a week as arranged. Some- time later a man called at his boarding house, handed him $200, and said it was the amouut plaintiff owed him. Defendant gave a receipt for it. Plaintiff never applied for the sum for which he sued, but he quarrelled with the de- fendant because the latter would not allow him to "steal some berths" for stowaways. When witness took these men off the ship the boatswain absconded, and plaintiff said he took with him $700 belonging to him.
acknowledgme it The manager of the defen- dant's shop, the Kui Tak, approached him and said his mistress wished to borrow $500 to buy pearls. Plaintiff agreed to advance the amount, and when the widow called he handed her five $100 bills. She had not repaid any part of the principal.
In cross-exmination plaintiff said the defend- ant was a relation of his. When the Kui l'ak shop closed he was one of the chief creditors. Previous to advancing the amount for which he was suing, plaiutiff lent the defendant $1000, She told him she could not pay him then, and on due date he pressed her for payment.
adding-"You need not be afraid. I will repay you even if I sell my sons and daughters." I will not owe you a cash."
Defendant said she was the mistress of the Kui ak shop. She did not remember making a promissory note for $500 in favour of the defendant, and had never seen the one produced before. She did not authorise her manager to borrow 85 0. The Kui Tak shop closed on December 15th last year on the advice of the plaintiff She never owed plaintiff any money, bat her shop did.
Cross-examined-The Kui Tak belonged to her husband, who had been dead about nine years. She bad not taken out probate or letters of administration. When the writ of summons in this action was served on her she denied her
identity because she could not understand the bailiff. She knew about the deed of comp sition put in. The cred-tors were to get $32 06 per cent. Witness gave a charge on her property in Canton to cover what was owing plaintiff's wife.
After further evidence was taken, the case was adjourned.
Wednesday, August 28th.
IN APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
BEFORE THE FULL COURT.
A PARTNERSHIP APPEAL,
Hon. Dr. Ho Kai, instructed by Mr. G. K, applied for leave to appeal against the decision of Hall Brutton (of Masers, Brutton & Hett)
His Honour Mr. Justice Wise in finding that Li Chi-chiu was a partner in the Tak Li Lung firm. (No fewer than thirty-three actions are stated to be pending against the present appellant in which the aggregate amount claimed is about $16,000.)
Hon. Dr Ho Kai in opening, stated that the
made at a recent waterpolo match at Hong-document you produce "received payment for a application was for leave to appeal in a matter
kong, where the speciators were certainly not animated by the laudable desire to see the better team win. The majority of the spectators belonged to the Victoria Recrea- tion Club, at whose premises the match was played. The competing teams were the Corinthian Yacht Club's team and a team of soldiers. If the former won,' the ultimate success in the competition of the V. R. C. team was deemed to be less likely, so the V. R. C. spectators gave vent to their feelings as if their own champions were engaged at the time. Such feelings were natural and excusable, but it was Lot good sport to show them in that way. Here too the chief offenders were not players, but non-playing members of the V. R. C. whose anxiety to have their club retain the shield blinded them to the bad taste of their
Mr. Almada-Why didn't you put ou the loan"-I didn't think of it.
You have been a business mau for thirty years, and you want the Court to believe that you don't know how to write a proper receipt?Chinese generally write them as I have done.
Didn't you use the chop you did with the object of avoidi g payment afterwards ? – No.
After hearing further evidence his Lordship gave judgment and costs for plaintiff.
A SEAMAN'S DEBT.
arising out of summary jurisdiction action 960 in which Leung Shuo-bing and Wong Choi
claimed payment of the sum of $333.92 from the Tak Li Lung firm and Li Hing-pong and Li Chi-chin, partners. It was on behalf of the third defendant that leave to appeal was now applied for.
The ground?
Chief Justice-What is the main
Dr. Ho Kai-That he is not a partner. The "aisue Judge-I held he was.
Mak Ying sued Cheng Kwai to recover $100, money lent on August 16tb. Plaintiff was
Dr. Ho Kai-The decision of Mr. Justice represented by Mr. d'Almaia and defendant Wise was that he was a partner, and leave to appeared in person. He said he owed $41.5; appeal is now asked for, to have that decision no more.
rvVG s+d.
Plaintiff told his Lordship the defendant was She ad-
going to load sand and earth for her.
anced him $100 to repair his boat which had not carried any sand or earth, so the amount was been damaged in the typhoon. Defendant had still due.
The Paisne Judge-Have you put up all your security?
Dr. Ho Kai-Yes.
The Puisne Judge--There are eight cases. Dr. Ho Kai-Yes, and we have put up the total amount to show your Lordships the