April 4, 1908.]
Mr. HUMPHREYS having asked questions as to whether the habit common among the lower Chinese of spitting in public was detrimental to public health, and if it were accountable for the spread of phthisis and diphtheria,
The MEDICAL OFFICEEF HEALTH replied- I would suggest that an Ordinance be passed declaring spitting in public places forbidden under the draft byelaws prepared by the com. mittee and be declared a nuisance within the meaning of section 3, sub-section 2, Ordinance 1 of 1845 (Summary Ordinance) and that the power conferred under that Ordinance be limited to oases where the offence has been committed in spite of notices prohibiting it, and in spite of the provision of spittoons, and I would recommend that power be given to the Board to require the provision of spitto‐ns iù the licensed premises named and the patting up of notices on the walls of such premises and further I suggest that the Government provide spittoons and put up notices in those parts of the Government buildings to which the public have access. I think this would obviate any hardship.
The PRESIDENT -I believe the other members of the committee, Mr. Humphreys and Captain Lyons, are agreeable to that
Mr. HOOPER-It seems to me that as the Government are amending the Public Health and Buildings Ordinance they could deal with this at the same time. It is purely a sanitary measure and emanated from the Sanitary Board. It does not matter very much which Ordinance is amended but it strikes me this wou'd be
better.
CAPTAIN LYO\8 moved the suspension of the Standing Orders in order that the subject might be discus el'in Committee. This was agreed to.
·SUPREME COURT,
Monday, 30th March.
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.
Baron THE CHIEF JUSTICE
(SIE F. PIGGOTT).
THE CONSPIRACY TRIAL,
!
The trial of the three men Yu-n Fuk Shang. Yin Sui hau and Chan aam Tong on a charge of conspiracy to defraud was resumed,
Sir Henry Berkeley, addressing the jury for the defence, pointed out that the police officer who executed the gambling warrant had ex- oeeded his authority when he arrested a num- ber of men in the house who were not gambling. If such a proceeding were approved it would abolish all sacredness of the home. Had it been an Englishman, a Scolsman or a German that had been so arrested there would have beeù au ontory throughout the land,
The Chief Justice-I am sorry to interrupt you, Sir Henry, but you are not putting the law quite correctly. There is nothing in the war- rant to stop the officer from exercising his discretion. He is ordered to seizs and arrest. That is the law without regard to whether they are Chinese or anybody else.
Sir Henry-I say with great respect, my Lord, that the warrant does not anthorise him to go into the house and with immunity seize persons there against whom there is not one title of evidence that they have been gambling. With such an interpretation of the law the soredness of any man's house in Hongkong would not be safe for one moment, I venture to say, with great respect, that your Lordship will not tell the jury that an officer can go into any man's house under such a warrant and drag him away and his family and such persons as are there without a title of evidence that gambling is going on.
The Chief Ju tice-I am sorry to say that is the law. That is the order of the magistrate
on the warrant,
I am
Sir Henry-If I were arguing this matter *before you I would take this point; that the
document must be taken as a whole. entitled now to tell the jury that the man were not gambling and as a matter of fact a false charge was made against them. I put this to you jurymen that no man from Mr. Foreman downwards-let the lawyers read the law as they like would not consider it an outrage to be
treated as these men were,
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
The Attorney-General followed at length. He pointed out that no evidence had been brought by the defence that the notes found in the possession of the accused were not forged.
|
The Chief Justice, addressing the jury said—– My duty will be to deal generally with the case and to dwell on certain points that occur to me as worthy of your consideration. I daresay you will have noticed that in the cross- examination of some of the "witnesses I had to suggest to the counsel for the prisoners that ho should not make interlocutory | speeches to the jury. That of course is part of the tricks of the trade. Counsel when asking questions should get in a little speech to the jury, but you must put away all these little flowers of argument and I must aak you now to consider the pros and cons in this extraordinary osse. There is one point to which I would like to refer Sir Hoary drew attention to the position of the second prisoner, and rightly so as the photograph of the prisoner was found in the house in bis character or dress as expectant magistrate. He said that all the cadets here were expectant magistrates, but the | point insisted on was that this prisoner was what we would call a Chinese gentleman. In the law courts all people come bзfore the judge in the same position as when it was asked,
When Adam delved and Eve span · Who was then the gentleman P There is no such thing as a gentleman in the English courts now, you have to judge people irrespective of their social position, whether English or Chinese. Referring to the plice officer, I must tell you that he dil his duty, absolutely fairly and strictly as the law required. There was no fault to be found with the way in which he did his duty The warrant required him to do what be did. If there was any irregulari:y an action ould
be brougat against him. It WAS insisted that the case for the Crown was wildly improbable, but I want to impress upon you the necessity of weighing the evidence aud not allow yourselves to be carried away by the seeming improbability of the story. We have in English procedure a graud jury, and it is customary for the judge. in addressing them to speak to them as men of the world and as men who knew the community in which they dwelt. It is important not to allow yourselves to be carried away by the argument of improbability. My experience is that nothing is impossible nothing improbable in the shap of a story which some Chinamen will ask a judge or jury to believe. I will go further and say that, ao story you can imaginé is impossible and no story you oan imagine is improbable. You cannot judge this case as you would judge an English case You must bring yourself down to the level of the Chinese who have given evidence before you. You are here as guardians of the law as it is administered in this Colony whether English or Chinese It is as much your duty to protect a European from being swindled by a Chinamad as it is to protect a Chinaman from being I would swindled by another Chinaman. ask you to remember that this story is told by people who belong to the old class of Chinese. China is in a state of progress. There is now a party of larger intelligence than the old, but the old-traditions which we call ignorance and superstition still remain. It may be perfectly possible, if you believe the story for the prosecution, that these men used their larger intelligence to do what was said they did.
-
At the close of his address the jury retired and returned with a six to one verdict that the prisoners were not guilty
The prisoners were discharged.
Tuesday, 31st March.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION,.
BEFORE THE CHIEF Justion (SIE F.
PIGGOTT).
AN INSURANCH CLAIM.
225
and William Murray Soott The Hon. Mr. H. E. Pollock, K. C. (instructed by Mr. Dennys, of Messrs. Dennys and Bowley), appeared for. the plaintiffs, and Mr. M. Slade (instructed by Mr. O. D. Thomson) for the defendants.
نگر.
Plaintiffs claimed that in September, 1906, they entered into a written agreement with the plaintiffs whereby the defendants, in consider- ation of the plaintiffs agreeing to pay them the usual guild rate of premium, agreed to insure, certain goods of the plaintiffs which were then on board the junk "Wo Hop" in Hongkong Harbour, against the perils of the sea from Hongkong to Canton, from that hour-9.10a.m. About an hour after making the agreement, the goods were wholly lost by the perils of the sea in Hongkong. Harbour. The plaintiffs had duly tendered the promium in respect of the insurance and requested the defendants to pay the sum of $4,320, but they had refused to accept the money or pay the loss on the goods.
A jury action was heard in which the Kwong Tak Bong firm of 122 Des Voeux Road West claimed $4320 from the Yaon On Marine and Fire: Insurance Company, Ltd. The special jury con sisted of Messrs. Charles Henry Grace, Alfred Holland Skelton, David Haskell, Edwd. Harvey Hinda, Donaldson Riddell Law, Harry Humphrey
The defence denied that the defendante entered into any agreement to insure the goods against any perils.
The case was adjourned.
IN SUMMARY JurisdictION.
Вагова Мг. Н. Н. J. GOMPERTZ (AOTIME PUISKE JUDGE)..
A SHOPMAN'S CLAIM. Leung Cheong Wab, a shopman, brought sa- action against the Cheung Fat firm, Wing Lok Street, for $100 being money lent. Mr. R. Harding appeared for the plaintiff and Sir Henry Berkeley, K.C., instructed by Mr. 8. A. · Dickson from the office of Mr. R. A. Harding, appeared for the defendant
Mr. Harding stated that on the 9.h April last the p'aiutiff's brother, who was employed by the defendant rm, mat with an accident, He fell off the roof of the premises and was killed and, as solatium, the defendants gave plaintiff $100 to pay the expenses of the funeral and the cost of taking the body to Canton, Plaintiff after receiving the money handed it back to the defendants the same day to be placed on deposit and an acknowledgment was given to him. It might seem an extra- ordinary story but he would call the plaintiff and produce the document. It was alleged that the document was forged and that the chop was forged.
*
Sir Henry indicated thit the defence was a denial that any money had been lerrt by plain iff to the firm and that the document produced wai a forgery.
Judgment was awarded defendants with
costs..
Wednesday, 1st April,
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE THE CHIEF JUSTICA (SIR FRANCIS PIGGOTT).
AN INSURANCE CLAIM..
The jury action was continued in which the Kwong Tak Hong firm of 122 Des Voeux Road West claimed 84320 from the Yuen On Marine and Fire nsurance Company, Ltd. The speial jary consisted of Messrs Charles Heary Grace, Alfred Holland Skelton, David H skell, EdwJ. Harvey Hinds, Donaldson Riddell Law, Harry Humphrey and William Mu ray coott. The Hon Mr. H. E. Pollook, K.C: (instructed by Mr. Dennys, of Messrs. Deanys and Bowley). appeared: for the plaintiffs, and Mr. M. Slade (instructed by Mr. O. D. Thomson) for the defendants.
In this action. the plaint ff's sought to recover the insurance upon goods lost on a jank which foundered in the typhoon of 18th September, 1906, application to insure which had been made that morning.
Mr. 8lade opened the case for the defendants by explaining the office routine of the Yuen Ou Company and ssid that on the morning of the typhoon the inauager went downstairs from his office and as he was walking through the office he was handed by the clerk an application for the insurance of a bale of cloth on the rame junk. He initialled it and returned it to the clerk who, in accordance with the practice in
รว