582
Mr. HEWETT—
-I am not prepared to say. depends upon the area. I should say a quarter of a mile ares.
The REGISTRAR-GENERAL Two hundred yards seems to me an excessive distance. don't think there are limita as large as that any- where in the town. One hundred yards is quite enough to prevent obstruction of the market
entrances.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
It, all if the words "situated in any rider main |
district" were omitted from regulation (a), (b) might cont sin, after the word "erected" in the fourth line the words "except with the permis- sion of the Sanitary Board." I would also add at the end of this resolation the words "and with a tap for drawing off the water." With regard to (d) it is customary to cleanse and limewash iron water tanks periodically to keep them free from vegetable growths, and I have never heard of anyone experiencing any ill effects from the minute amount of lime which might possibly become dissolved in the water immediately after the tank had been so lime-
washed.
Hon. Mr. HEWETT-I take it that that is not the idea of the Government at all. The idea is to keep a proper sanitary control over the food supplies of the population, and to that end the Government have gone to enormous ex- pense in building marketa. The Government want the people, as far as possible, to buy wholesome food in a sanitary condition in the market rather than to buy from filthy hawkers. Hawkers are allowed to trade only in outside places far from the markets, and where it is unreasonable to ask a man to walk so far to buy his food. I take it that it is not unreason. able to ask a man to walk even four hundred yards to buy food from a market.
•
Dr. MACFARLANE thɛught hawkers were not necessary in the village of Taikoktsui at all.
The REGISTRAR-GENERAL—We cannot ge bebind the Ordinance, which specifically protects these vegetable hawkers.
Hon Mr. H&WETT-If the Ordinance is wrong we can recommend that it be amended. The REGISTRAR-GENERAL-We cannot make use of our power to drive them into the markets. It would be better to make an order that hawkers should not trade near markets.
Hon. Mr. HEWETT moved that hawkers be not al owed to trade within a radius of 220 yards of a market.
The PRESIDENT seconded. The REGISTRAR-GENERAL-I am opposed to that. I think we are quite beyond our rights in acting aɛ we are at present. As I said, there vegetable hawkers are specially protected. It is laid down by law that they need not go into markets and it is not for us to try to get round that law as proposed. There are police regulations made to prevent undu- com- petition near market places. We should not extend the limits any further than is necessary to see the object carried out,
The motion, on being put to the meling, was carried.
THE TANK QUESTION.
On October 29th the Sanitary Board passed the following motion.-"That the Gvernment be requested to make rules under the Water- works Ordinance to regolate the placing of water tanks in back yards", and as a result the following regulation was made by the Governor-
in-Council:-
(a) No oistern or tank shall be constructed or maintained in any building situsted in the rider main distriot without the previous sanction in writing of the Water Authority.
(6) Every such cistern or tank intended to contain a supply of water for domestic purposes shall be of iron of a minimum thickness of one. eighth of an inch, and of a capacity not exceeding 100 gallons: it shall not be erected in any yard or other open space provided for the building in accordance with the requirements of any ordinance; its position shall be subject to the approval of the Water Authority, sud it shall be raised not less than six feet above the floor level, and shall be provided with a closely fitting iron cover,
(c) Every such cistern or tank intended to contain a supply of water for trade purposes hall be co: structed in such a manrers d posi- tion, and with such materials as the Water Authority may in each case require.
(d) Every cistern or tank, whether int-nd-d for domestic or for trade purposes shall be cleaned out and limewashed internally to the satisfaction of the Sanitary Board not less than twice a year. The cleaning out and limewash- ing to be done during the months of September aud March.
(e) Any person responsible for the sonstruc- tion or maintenance of any cistern constructed or maintained in contravention of any of the provisions of the Waterworks Ordinance, 1903, or of any regulation made thereunder, shall remove such cistern within seven days from the receipt of a written notice from the Water Authority requiring him to do so.
The MEDICAL OFFICE ‹ OF HEALTH -I do not think it would vitiate the regulations at
Mr. HOOPER--These regulations must be discussed.
Mr. LAU CHU.PAK-Regulation (a) sounds something like class legislation. It should be applied throughout the Colony. Regulation (d) - Does limewashing stimulate the appetite? If not, why is it considered advisable to give people a solution of limewash twice a year for culinary and trade purposes?
Consideration deferred.
THE LANDING OF CATTLE.
The PRESIDENT submitted а minute suggesting certain alterations to the byelaws dealing with the importation and examination cattle. At present infected cattle can only be landed at Yaumati and Kennedytown, and he suggested adding the words "or other place appointed by the Board." He also sugrested the substitition of the word "premises for the word place in byelaw No 12, as the word premises was clearly defined in the ordinance and would include any vessel lying in the harbour.
The PRESIDENT.-This has arisen in con. nection with the steamer Loong Sang which brought some infected cattle to the Colony. On looking into these byelaws they did not seem quite definite enough, and they could be ma e more definite I think, if the alterations suggest. ed were made. At present, according to the byelaws, cattle must be either taken to Kennedy- town or Yarmati. That can be get over by adding the words “or other appointed place."
Hon. Mr. HEWETT-Appointed by whom? The PRESIDENT-By the Board. Hon. Mr. HRWETT-Regarding the word premises, I would point out that place includes premises, but premises does not include a place. If you say a place and/or premises, it will be all right.
The PRESIDENT -Premises includes a place if you look at the definition.
Hon. Mr. HEWETT--The ordinary man does not understand premises including a place. À lawyer may say does, but a lawyer is a peculiar
person.
It was decided to refer the malter to the Crown Solicitor and the Medical Officer of Health.
SUPREME COURT.
Monday December 9th.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION,
BEFORE SIR FRANCIS PIGGOTT (CHIEF
JUSTICE),
A PARTNERSHIP DISPUTE.
This was an action by the Kwong Fang Wo firm against the Wing Ki Cheong and an issue between the plaintiff firm and Chan Mau-chi, otherwise Chan Pui Sin-tong, and Yim Wai- tak, alias Yim Ping kai alias Yim Quon, to decide whether the latter were partners in the Wing Ki Cheong.
able.
|
[December 14, 1907.
A prima facie case meant a which established a partnership unless it was rebutted. He put it to the Court that no evidence had been adduced, and certainly not against Yim Quon. Was hi Lordship warranted in coming to the conclusion that a man was s partner in the firm because he sat at a Chinese feast and acted as host, or would a jury be justified in coming to such a conclusion un such grounds?
Mr. M. W. Slade, instructed by Mr, Sargent (of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist) appeared for the plaint ff, and Sir Henry Berkeley, K.C., instructed by Mr. Otto Kong Sing. for the defendants.
His Lordship-I should leave that to a jury, knowing what we must know. It is uncon. tradicted; that being so, that would be sufficient
Plaintiffs' case baving concluded, Sir Henry Berkeley raised a point regarding the admis. sibility of certain evidence which had ben adduced, and quoted sathorities in support of his contentions. He put the prop sition to the Court that the statement of ous partner could not be used against the other. It was dis. | tinotly laid down in Lindley that the Court could not receive the answer of one alleged partner, in Chancery, in evidence to establish a partnership. Onos a partnership was on. tablished, however, such admission was receiv.
to admit other evideno».
Sir Henry Berkeley—I would now refer your Lordship to Taylor on Evidence. You must not, in coming to any conclusion be in any way— Mr. Slade-My friend is simply beating the air.
Sir Henry Berkeley (to his Lordship) —I don't think you heard my proposition. It was obscured by my friend's interruption. Taylor says the existence of a joint interest which is disputed cannot be establishe ! by one of the parties sought to be charged, but must be shown by indepen- dent proof, I take it that you don't show a thing by independent proof if you show it partly by independent proof. Until our Lordship has evidence before you sufficient to prove that one man is a partner you should not listen to the statements of others. I would ask your Lordship to dismiss the case without calling upon us,
Mr. Slade I don't think your Lord-hip should come to the decision of this case with the confusion which my learned friend has tried to raise in your mind with regard to the difference of an admission of evidence given by a partner. The admission of a partner in the sanso used by Taylor is an admission made somewhere or other, and proved by outside evidence-by people who have heard him make a statement. Admission and confession are on the same footing in treatises on evidence. Your Lordship is well aware that in the old days in England no person pecuniarily interested in an issue o uld give evidence at all. It was thought to be conductive to justice and the prevention of false swearing that the plaintiff, "defendant and other parties interested should not be eligible to give evidence on oath. But even in those days one partner was a competent witness to prove the existence of a partnership against another ma1. Pan Sik-yee gets in the box and gives the names of his partners, The list includes the name of Yim Quon.
¡
His Lordship-That is evidence proving it beyond hearsay.
Mr. Slade Certainly. He says Chau Maa- ahi and Yim Quon were partners. That is not an admission in the sense of the word admission used by Taylor. That is direct evidence sworn on oath. Under the strictest rule of the old Common Law one partner was a competent wit ness against another.
His Lordship-A point which occurs to me is this; that I cannot enter a non-suit if there is any thread left unravelled during the course of the plaintiffs' case, The partoer- ship book has been put in, and until that is cleared up it seems to me that it is impossible to say there is no osse, because I have to whether there is any case, or possibility of a case, on the evidence before the Court. I must take the whole evidence. I think on that technical ground. I could not non-suit, although I have very grave doubts in the case of Yim Quon.
Mr. Slade~Of course, my Lord I put it to your Lordship that it is a weak onse.
Sir Henry Berkeley said the osse for the defence was that neither Chan Man-chi nor
Yim Quou were at any time partners in the Wing Ki Cheong Yim Quon was the land. lord of the premises in which the Wing Ki Cheong carried on business, and for which they paid him $165 a month. That was admitted by the sole witness against the defendants. Chan Mau-chi was the owner of the shop adjoining the Wing Ki beong, and he reated to thật firms room in his shop for $30 a month That fact was also admitted. The room that he rented to the Wing Ki Cheong, which he visited « occasionally, was locked and barred and there was no communication between his shop and the Wing Ki Cheong by the medium of this FOOD. The onus of proof that these men wer, partners was, of course, on the plaintiffs. Buté by the course the cases had taken, and by the