February 3, 1908.]
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
SUPREME COURT.
Friday January 24th.
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION,
(CHIEF JUSTICE).
portant position of Inspector General of Customs. Perhaps the judgment of four or five men at Shanghai is competent to assess such qualifications for the benefit of the two Governments of Great Britain and China. In that case, of course, the Hong- kong four or five superfluously supported BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR FRANCIS PIGGOTT the telegram. Or is it possible that the Hongkong committee were guided by a thorough knowledge of the qualifications, or rather, in this case, the disqualifications? It must be remembered that the public has bad Mr. GUNDRY's letter to the Foreign Office, in which it is obvious he urged all that could be urged against Sir R. E. BREDON. Has anyone failed to notice how
little there appeared in tha letter to warrant it? We have not discussed this
(C
*1
ALLEGED CONSPIRACY,
Lim Wing. Hau Kee, Li Hishia and Hop wo-tong were indicted ou a charge of conspiring to defeat the ends of justice by defranding the members of the Po Sang Bank. Prisoners pleaded not guilty, nad the following jury was empanelled-A. E. Crapnell (foremaa), K. Braudes. *. Jenkins, B. Aagaard, W. T.
Shewan, H. Hyndman and F. Heldt.
The Attorney-General, Hon. Mr. W. Rees the Crown Solloitor's office) prosecuted, and Davies, instructed by Mr. G. E. Morrell (of Sir Henry Berkeley, K.C, instruc.ed by Mr. R. Harding represented the defendants.
After hearing the evidence the jury, by a majority of five to two, brought in a verdict of not guilty, and the Attorney-General entered a nolle prosequi on the second charge.
Monday, January 27th,
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR MR. JUSTICE WISE (PUISNE JUDGB).
HORTICULTURAL DISPUTE.
Lam Shi and others to recover the sum of $445,31 Action was brought by Leong Tai against
for hire and damage of plants. Mr. Otto Koug Sing appeared for the plaintiff, sad Mr. P. W. Goldring (of Messrs. Goldring and Barlow) for the defrodan1a.
question without weighing the evidence, and the principal evidence is public property; A little knowledge of Shanghai is useful too, perhaps; but above all there needs to b a frank and courageous admission of the presence in the human beart every where of forces quite as actual and powerful as the new political forces in that under-world upon whose thin crust the West maintains a precarious. footing to which oue speaker somewhat cryptically alluded. If we are more candid than some people like, it is surely a good fault. There is room for lots of honesty yet in this world. Dr. MOR- RISON showed deplorable "want of faith in the ideals which inspire We-teru thought and Western activities in these regions," and because he is said to have spoken in fun, and not with the earnestuess nud honesty that animated our criticisms, mark how amiably he is corrected. Why was he Mr. Kong Sing stated the action was brought not accused of critical insobriety, of lack of to recover the sum of 84.19 balance of rent for inancers? We need not supply the answer.
the hire of plan's and the rasining sum of Lots of readers will be able to do that, and if $400, bing the amount of damage caused by we were to do it we should only be showing plaintiff was a nursery gardener, and so was the the defendant to plaintiff's property. The our deplorable lack of faith in the ideals that defendant. On September 19.h last year a inspire some samples of Western activity. man named Leung, who was employed by the But now let us warn the public against defendant as manager, rented from the plaintiff following this red herring across the trail. a certain number of flower pols; the total The tone and tenour of our comment has amonut of rent due for the hire of these wis $43.30 On November 12th plaintiff rec-iv-d been grievously misrepresented by Mr. MER-
$1 on acount, and on November 17th more BAY STEWART, and we have felt obliged to reply at length to counteract the mischief plants were lice, rent for which am un
ied to $11.8, thus making up the total of of it. If the whole sentence had been
$15.10. On the same day this manager or agent quoted, the decency of it could not have of the defendant a so hired from the plaintiff been called in question. That is the rel one pair of elm trees in the shape of one large herring-the newly raised question of our general; one pair of elm trees in the shape journalistic respectability. Lt it go. The of a second general; one pair of warriors; one true scent is on the trail we started out to pair of large green bamboos; and twelve pots of table plants. The action was brought in follow the inner history of the attack on
respect to the pair of elm trees in the shape Sir ROBERT HART's successor. That is
of one large general. The plant had takeo what the local Branch of the China AB-
many years to attain this shape, and at the sociation should have discussed. With a time of the hiring of this large general weak case it may be useful to abuse the opposing Counsel, but that is not to say that it also pays to ignore the issue before the Court. Why is the new Inspector General obnoxious to those who opposed his appointment? Mr. GUNDRY'S published reasons were flimsy; the local Branches have offered none at all; we have suggested quite possible ones; the public now wants to know the truth of the matter, not to he distracted by personal criticisms such as those to which we have just been treated. We invite public opinion on the Lania issue so far as it has developed. Is the China Association in this iustance representing "Westeru ideals and Western thought," or does it happen that less than a dozen wen have committed the error of the tailors of Tooley Street f
and other plants, which were to le takon to Macao, the plaintiff asked, and the defendant's manager agreed that a certain price should be damaged. In that agre ment the price fixed put upon these plants in case they Were
was $100, and the agreement was signed by the defendant's manager. One of the plants, ou being returned, was found to be damaged to such an extent as to be absolutely useless, and that, the plaintiff said, caused the other plant 10
lose its value.
Plaintiff was called, and said he had been io
75
In it not a fact that you got up this case na a sort of revenge for this man ?—I did to such thing as that,
Mr. F. Howell, chief bailiff of the Supreme Court was called next. He said the tress in question were exhibited at the first show of the Horticultural Society. The plants were very old ones, and it must hɩa takon à grosť nambər of years to train them,
Would you say $410 was to big a prios for these plants ?—I should say it was SU exorbitant price in Hongkong. In England they might bring that much, but here I should
say they are worth a little over $1 10 sach.
His Lordship-Would dɩməgɑ to one affect the other ?
Witness It would deteriorate the value of the other One of the plants I sw had besu neglected for some considerable time, while several branches on one side of the other one were broken, and it might take 6) or 70 years to train them again.
Mr. Goldring said the defend sat did not admit that Lam Sin was his manager. He was simply employed there as a gardener, and was dismissed for stealing a chop and collecting money from various clients which he had no right to do.
Fong Lo-lok was then called for the defence. He said he was manager of the defendant's garden at Woagneicheong and it was part of his business to resuscitate flowers when they were dyiog
Cross-examined-I suppose you're hid a great deal of experience in gardening ?—I have hai rary little; I am there to look after the acoɔunts and nurse plants.
You're a so ool boy, aren't you? —I am not. Did you put the plaintiff's plaat in your pɔt?—No.
You cannot ander tand how another man's tree gol into your pot?
His Lordship-He osme back to a day and found it there.
Witness-Plaintiff asked permission to put his plants in our pots.
His Lordship said he had not the slightest doubt in this case that the plaintiff should succeed in getting something. His Lordship bal no doubt from the facts admitted that Lam San ran the defendant's business and was authoris- ed to collect debts and 010 the shop. There would be judgment for $100, plus $15 10) and costs for the plaintiff, and defendan ta were ordered to return the other pot and plant at oacs. If they did not there would be jadg-
mant for $:00,
Mr. oldring-Are we to gat our pots back? His Lordship-No, you are not to get their ots back. I do not believ› they are yʊur pots.
Tuesday, January 28th.
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION,
BEFORE HIS HONOUR MR. JUSTICE Wiss (POISNE JUDGE).
A NEGLECTFUL DEFENDANT.
An action was brought by the Vistoria Dispensary against W. H. Manners to recover the sum of $12.96 for goods sold and delivered. Court, and denied farther liability. Mr. M. J. Defendant had paid part of this amount into D. tephas represiated the plaintiffs, and the def adsat appeared in person.
Mr. Stephens informed his Lordship that the matter had not proceeded any further since it was previously called on. Defendant had paid into Court a certain amount, but he had not paid in the fee. 'Perhaps," Mr. Stephens "he has something to say this suggested, morning."
Possession of the general plants for the last nine years, and they were over one hundred years old. I paid more than $100 for the two. Witness exhibited these plants in the last show of the Horticultural Society, as they took first prize, and they were DUT worth several hundred dollars.
Cross-examined-One, Lam San, was a ro's | Stephens ? tion of bis. He was dismissed from defendant's garden on November 28th, but witness could not say why he was dismissed.
Don't you know he was dismissed for collect.
Subject to audit, the Directors of the Honging bills be had no right to collect, and keeping kong and Whampoa Dook Company. Limited, will recommend at the forthcoming meeting a dividend of 8 %=$4.00 per share; and carry forward about $136,000.
the money?—I don't ko ɔw anything about it.
He was going to be a witness for you until his hear, failed him, wasn't he?--I didn't look for him to be a witness,
|
14
Defendant-What I hire to say is this : last Friday it was a question of costs. Had I paid up $4.17 the case would have been withdrawn. I went to Messrs. Watson's head offce-
Hi Lordship-Why didn't you go to Mr.
Defendant-I went to the head office and paid a sum of money.
Mr. 8 opbeas-I did not hear anything of this; besides the Victoria Dispenmry is another firm.
Defendant-It belong to A. 8. Watson and Co.
His Lordship—You ha` better pay the money again; you wouldn't do what I told you.