་
Page
February 8, 1908.]
fact, common sense, and a little give and take in their dealings with those on whom they hava to impress the primary laws of sanitation.
A vote of thanks to His Excellency proposed by Mr. PERKINS, seconded by Mr. OuGH, and carried in the usual way, ended the proceedings. |
|
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REFORT.
|
97
Mr. Thoms ›¤—I did not koɔw until to day, Mr. Grist — Both were prosecuted. The one for disorderly condust was bound over and dismissed, while the other one was convicted of having wrongfully left the employment of his master, and bound over. I don't see how he can
chean, of No. 53. Das Voor Road Central; I His Lordship-Why didn't you sex to tha i Chan Lok-cheun, of No. 124, Wing Lok Street. ¦ yesterday? and Shom Pak-ming, of No. 61. Doalam Strand, ba committed to prison on the g ound that in breach of the prohibitory order mada ia an action on December 4. 197, b-tw-ea neu Ching-tang, trading as the Tai Tak Tung bank, and the Wing Shan firm, they did sell the goods mentioned in the probibitory order, and appropriated the proceeds of the sale and disobeyed the order of the Court. Hon. Mr. H E. Pullock, K.C., instructed by Mr. H. W. Looker, (of Messrs. D'aco¤, F. B. L. Loker and Deacon) appeared for the first three respon i- BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR FRancis Piggott ents; and Sir Hen-y Bork-ley, K ('%, instructed
SUPREME COURT.
Friday, January 31st.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION,
(CHIEF JUSTICE).
THE AMOY CASE, WITNESSES COMMITTED FOR
TRIAL FOR IERJURY.
by Mr. Bowley, (of Messrs. Denays and Bowley) appeared for Shum Pak-ming.
Mr. Slade said Sir Henry's client had denied partnership, and the motion against him could not coutinar.
The motion as to Sham Pak-ming wa accordingly discharged, and argument as to
costs was deferred.
His Lordship delivered bis judgment in the case in which the Ng Yuen Ying firm brought action against the Lap Kee firm to recover the sum of $5,000, the amount paid to the defend-
that 20,000 The case for the plaintiff wAS ants by mistake in respect of the bill of
picals of peas and beans, and ti, (4) piculs of exchange.
Mr. M. W. Slade, icstructed by Mr. G. K. peanut oil, that had bra attached by a& prohibi- Hall Brutton (of Messrs. Brutton and Hett;tory order, had been sold. appeared for the plaintiffs, and Hon. Mr. H. E. Pollock, KC, intructed by Mr. Daniels (of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master) for the defendants.
His Lordship, after tracing the evidence at length, said the evidence which had been prepared in Amoy for the defendants was coa- sistent only with one of two things: either the three men, Ta: Hing, Fung Yuen and Tiu Hing were together guilty of concocting this fraud, or they all, and the Wing Fang, coo- spired togther to defraud the plaintiff. H. was afraid that the men from Amoy neglected the sage advice of worthy Wong Pan-lap that "British law attaches great importance 1o true evidence. There would be judgment for the plaintiff with CUS:8. But Wong Pan-lap's advice was disregarded, and bis reflection as to the consequenes of giving false evidence in a British Court would come to pass. Under the provisions of section 31 of Ordinance 3 of 1873 his Lordship ordered all the Amoy witnesses to be arrested to stand their trial at the Assizes for perjury. His reasons for taking this course were as follows: -He had pointed out that there had been in the case as clear a conspiracy as ould well be imagined; that this took place in Amoy out of the jurisdiction. If there had been a conspiracy there had also been perjury at this end. Under section 131 be had power of summary sentence, but as the interpretation which he put upon those powers had been challenged in another case, it would not be decorous for him to exercise them in that way. He thought he ought not to exercise them till the Privy Council had given its decision. This was a case in which three months' imprisou- ment would be far too short a sentence if he was right in what he believed to be the facts, but there had been no jury and it would be fairer for this question to be decided by a jury instead of by one man. In view of the importance of the action he was taking he would say, though he didn't think it needful to say it, that he had not acted without due deliberation. As it was possible his inference from the facts were erroneous, he had consuled Mr. Justios Wise and the Attorney-General, treating them as a grand jury, and they agreed with his view. The direction he had the power to give under the Ordinance did not, of course, deprive the Attorney-General of his right to discontinue proceedings against any one of the men should be think it right to do so. That was the second time he had taken this extreme measure at the end of a trial. I was conscious of the importance of the power which the law of the Colony bad entrusted to him, and it was because he realised how great those powers were that he exercised them in order to prevent the Court of Hongkong being made a playground for Chinese witlesses to indulge in a rivalry of hard swearing.
ALLEGED CONTEMPT of CJURT.
Mr. Pullock argued that no person could be committel for disobedience unless there was proof of personal service, and the further hearing was adjara-d
Tuesday, February 4th.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION,
BEFORE IS HON CR. MR. A. G.
(PUINE JUDGE).
AN INCONSOLABL? DEBTOR.
que.
Mr. Thomson-I want to see the records ; the story, my client told me is quite different
The onses were adjourned,
from this.
Thursday, February 6th.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR MR JUSTICE WISH (PCISNE JUDGE).
AN UNPROFITABLE PART BRSHIP. W. H. Manners sund F. H. Cornell to recover the sum of $217.5) for money da.... Mr. P. W. Goldring (of Wastes. Goldring, Barlow and Morrell appeared for the defendant, and informed the Court that Mr. L wa had been into the books and found in respect of the partnership transactions between the plaintif ani the defendant that there was a balance due from the plaintiff to the defendant instead of the other way about.
Plaintif stated that he received a sum of $20 ) from a man named Mathows, which he handed over the F. H. Cornell. Mathews was repaid W188 by pixintin who had his rec-ipt. Witness was ant present when Mr. Lowe went into the RocoMULA.
Action was brought by Lai Chin-po to reciver from Lai Wai kim the sum of $92075 due for goods sold and delivered, and for money pd and advanced, Mr. P. Sydenham Dix (of Mr. R. A. Harding's office) appeared for the plaintiff, The defendant appeared in cas'ody. wept considerably, and was not represented by counsel.
Defendant admitted to his Lordship that be owed the mon-y, but said he had no means to pay it.
His Lord hip-There is no necessity to cry about it. Since you got the goods without the money to pay, you have got to suffer.
Defendaul-My macie promised to send the money to me, but he has not done so, His Lordship-Jadgment and platutiff
Wednesday, February 5th.
cista
IN SUMMARY JU-ISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR MR. A. G. WILE (Puisse Jubi
HUNGHOM LITIGANT«.
for
The case was called on in which the Yee Yik frm sought to recover from the Tin Hing Engi neering Co. Id. the sum of 822839 for work done in repairing and repainting buildings be. longing to the defendant at Hunghom.
Mr. E. J. Grist (of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist) appeared for the d-fendant, and Me O). D Thomson for the plaintiff.
Mr. Thomson applied for su aj tenment as his clients had ust yet return d from their celebration<
His Lordship -Wisn't this a case in which some sort of reteranos was mid- to a 1 architect ? Mr. Thomson - That is s, and the architect bas mid- bis report.
His Lordship-Is it a question of the man having done more work than he ought to hare doue?
Mr. Thomson- cording to the sprement he shou d hire done more work thau he did.
His Lordship put the ease into Friday's list and asked-What about the nex' two cam?
Mr. Thomson -- I would ask your Lordship W allow them to by adjournal too?
Mr. Grist -1 don't think my cle's ara will.
His Lordship-The d-falant said he nao i this money up in the busines8.
Plaintiff - Hardly, and when the things were sold I did not recure any of the money
Examined by Mr. Goldring plaintiff said he did out pay over ualy $15 out of the $200 Their business was not very successful.
|
1
Defendant was then called and stated that la May 1905 he entered into partnership relatio 18 with the plaintiff. Th-y started barigass as electricians sad electroplaters, witasun ovatri. buting roughly abo it $32 0 of the ospital and plaintiff $500. The understanding was that Mr. Magers was to have a co-third share in the business which, however, was not a 8000 108, and all the capital was lost. To a cartiin Chinese firm in "Waachsi from whom they got material Me. Manners paid $150 on soojaat of bis part of the capital. Defendant sant plainuff a statement of acounts at the end of December 1906. which showed that Mr. Manners was indebted to him, bat kaŋwing at the time that he had no money witness did not press the matter.
Questioned by Mr. Manners. defondant admitted that he had said the capital was lost.
And yet you so'd the business for sota l siah to Wilks and Jack ?—I sold a orta a plant.
For how much? $900
And you went to work for Wilks an i Jack! -Yea.
And you have been working for them evJE since?—I bare.
The plant which you sold for $90) I biliare cost us $30 is? ---- Som-where about that.
Hare I seen these books and rancheru ? — All the vouchers you have seen not once, bat several times.
While these acdigats wer› being made up was I present?—Noither was I,
Now 8 that I've had no say in the matter. when y a sold the basiness to Wilts and Jacka did you r veire a iy ssao`ion from m›? –{t wa sold with your knowledge.
a)
-
:
Defendant hire informed the Court that on S-ptember lat Mr. Manners went to Macao. On that date there was
many ia the business, and they could not get a17 work ta do. They tùsa owed them monthì reat and defendant wrote sal toll pisintiff how things were going on. Pia quiff wrote a letter in reply produc di in which he said, “ Don't all if you ca i possibly help i!.' At the end of Septembər
the Gas Company for thew months, and owed $19) for w.gw, so that he had to soosp、 the best offer he could get.
Mr. M. W. lade, instructed by Mr. F. Xing to have the cases adj›urn d. Ta p'aintiff. they were thres monthein dab: for rent, owed d'Almada e Castro (of Messrs. Almada and were convicted at the Magistracy. Smith) made application to His Lordship that Mr. Tamson-That is what I want to dal Kwan Koon-sue, otherwise Kwan Tao-shuo, of
oat. They say they were not. If they were [ No. 51, Bonham Street West; Faeng Heung.shall probably have to withdraw the case,
Plaiatiff proceeded to cross-examine :