240
THE CHARGE against a EUROPEAN MERCHANT,
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PREES AND
Mr. Dixon-No. What I set out to prove was that defendant represented he was about to carry on legitimate, bond fide businem for which he wanted à compradore, whereas, all the time he had a compradore in the business. He❘ obtained contracts for the supply of labour to stated definitely to the compradore that he bai the railway, whereas he has admitted here that he had not obtained contracts. On that state- Mr. C. Fment the complainant put down the money. I submit that that is suficient false pretence for your Worship to send the case to be tried before s jury.
Before Mr. J. B. Wood on Sept. 28 the hearing of the obarge against H. 8. Holies, merchant, of ob'sining $3,000 from Cheung him Leung by false pretences was resumed. Dixon appeared to prosecute and Mr. G. K. Holmes defended.
Chung Chim Leung, re-examined, said he was to get a commission from defendant on the railway contract. He was to be under no liability whatsoever. He paid the $3,000 as compradore. It was paid over to defendant to purchase goods. The latter had to find cus- tomers, but witness did not understand that he had to get customers as well.
In reply to his Worship witness said he did not know of anyone being in partnership with defendant.
His Worship intimated that he would proceed with the case.
Defendant was then called, and after being duly cautioned, said he had bad dealings in connection with the Canton section of Kowloon- Canton Railway just before. and during May. He had two letters from men who were connected with this section, also a statement of particulars. (These documents were produced.) During April and May witness went to Canton on two or three occasions in connection with this business. He also thought he went in June, He expected to get a contract from this section to supply coolies for labour. Defendant never gave complainant the particulars of the con. tract, as he was not intending him to be under any liability in connection with it. If he took iability he would have had to put up extra
Lam Tai Nam was the next witness. He said the complainant had stayed at a shop with im in Des Voeux Road since the 10th moon last year. He remembered an interview between complainant and defendant in May, when Young Chik Sam was also present. Com- plainant asked Yeang Chik Sam to ask defen. tant if he wanted to engage a compradore. He maid, "Yes," but he wanted $10,000 security-lecurity. $5,000 cash and $5,000 deeds. He would pay $150 a month as wages. Defendant told com- plainant he was going to start import and export business, and perhaps railway work. He said he was going to get the contract,
In reply to his Worship, witness said the defendant told complainant he was in business.
Proceeding, he said the same four people were present at a second interview, when defendant told complainant to go and get the money. He said he had get a contract to engage workmen on the Kowloon railway. Com plainant said, "If you have got the job and am able to get permission and am able to make some money out of it, I don't mind being compradore as well." Defendant told complain. ant he had better go home, think over the matter, and if he decided to be his compradore, to bring his securities. Complainant said he would go home and consult with his fokis. At a third interview complainant said he would accept the compradoreship. He said Yeung Chik Sam had promised to put up $5,000 in deeds. With reference to the cash he was only able to raise $3,000, but would get the remaining $2,000 in a few days. Defendant told complainant if he got the money be (defendant) would get the agres- ment ready. When they went to see defendant on [the fourth occasion with the money, he took them to Mr. Almada's office where the agreement was drawn up. Complainant was to start his duties
compradore two or 8.8
three days after the agreement Was signed During the time witness was at the office, sometimes three times a week, he did not see any business done. On one occasion complainant asked witness to ask defendant when he would get business. Witness said, "Hallo, Mr. Holmes, when is your cargo coming, and when will you have the Kowloon railway work." Defendant | said, "By-and-bye."
Cross-examined-Witness had a $500 share, and three other persons had shares. He was not employed at another business. Witness did not know why the balance of the money was not paid according to the agreement. Com- plainant told him these proceedings were going to be taken for the recovery of the balance of his wages. Complainant got the balance of the money over a month ago, but said he did not want to hand it over to defendant. Witness would not like to withdraw if there was business, but he had no say in the matter. He had never heard the defendant speak Chinese,
This closed the case for the prosecution. His Worship-What false pretences do you consider you have proved, Mr. Dixon ?
Mr. Dixon-That defendant stated that he had obtained a contract from the railway and that complainant would be able to participate in the profits derived from that contract. I have proved that by complainant and another witness.
His Worship You don't consider you have proved that defendant stated that he already had business with the railway?
|
|
At this stage the hearing was adjourned.
The hearing of the obarge of obtaining $3,000 by false pretences against H. S. Holmes, merchant, was continued at the Magistracy on Sept. 30 before Mr. J. R. Wood. Mr. Dizon, of Messrs. Hastings and Hastings appeared to prosecute, and Mr G. K. Holmes defended.
in-
The cross-examination of defendant was resumed. He stated that at the date of the first agreement, 16th May, he was solvent. His liabilities only included a few local bills and bis assets included a motor launch valued at $2,000. It was true the launch was sold a few days ago under an execution for $95. His assets com. prised some motor machinery worth about $2,500 which was at present at Canton. He had also at that time a few bills to collect, The compradore's agreement Wad in his handwriting. The $5,000 mentioned W&4 security against loss in business. For stance, a customer might fail to take delivery of goods which would have to be sold by auction and a loss would ensue. He used the money in the business. He lodged the sum in the bank and drew cheques as required. Questioned as to his dealings with the bank, he said he had drawn $4,000 in respect of other business than that for which Ko A Him was responsible. While Ko A Him was his compradore he made contracts for batter, buttons, etc., but none of these had been com. pleted. Defendant's liability with regard to these would be about $3,000. The goods had been ordered. He tried to cancel all local orders when Ko A Him went away. He could not give the names without his books. He got several orders when Ko A Him was compradore. On May 20th he had received no orders through Ko A. Him.
Where is the $3,000 you received from the compradors ? I utilised it in the business,
|
|
|
|
[October 8, 1908.
Continuing, defendant said: the $2,000 was given him in a cheque which he laber szok with Young for a promissory notendum
You don't know what his other name is ?- He always called himself Yeung,
He was in the offles all the while ?—Yes. He was one of the partners of the compradors.
And you are calling him as a witness P--Yes, And you don't know his name? ---No. Defendant added that he told complainant he was expecting a contract from the railway but he gave him no details. The matter was not mentioned as sa inducement. He thought he did not tell the complainant about it until after the agreement was signed.
Are you in a position to pay off Sit Laung Kit's claim had he obtained judgment against you the other day ?--You.
a
Now?—Not just to-day.
1
What do you mean?— Within a month or two, Do you intend to pay him off in a month and half?
Defendant--Am I bound to answer that
question?
Mr Dixon-Certainly.
Defendant-If the business I am doing is satisfactorily finished by that time.
Mr Holmes-The question is not clear. Hid Worship-You' men when the money is free ?
Defendant-Ye
Mr Dixon-How much have you standing at your predit at the bank?
Defendant I have nothing to my credit at the bank.
Have you no banking socount ?—No. When did you cease to have a banking account ?-About a month ago.
And you are carrying on your business without a banking account P—Yes.
Are you going to continue to do that ?--After this lotion I shall—
What action P—After this oase.
Do you oooedder that your assets at the present time are sufficient to pay Bit Loung Kit's $5,000, complainant's 8,000, and your other debts? -Yes.
Jadgment was obtained against you the other day for $1,000 for soy sauce ? —Yes.
That judgment was executed and your motor- launch sold, bat the balance of the judgment has not yet been paid P-It has been paid.
Who paid it It has been paid. Hi Worship-Answer the question. Did you pay it? My brother paid it. I obtained the money from him.
Other judgments obtained against you in the early part of the year were liquidated from the same source -One judgment was.
M.Dixon intimated that he would resuMER his dross-examination of defendant after be had made an inspection of the books and the promissory notes.
Lam Saw, who had been in the employ of defendant, said he had been trying to get = contract from the Canton Railway for the engaging of coolies. The letter produced stated that 2,000 coolies were to be engaged at $15 per So far as he knew the contract was month. still open.
Cross-examined-You speak English !...-A
How much ?-Not much. How much ?—I know
little
one, two, three, four
Anything else ?--I know "good morning," come," and "go to work.”
I had to pay interest on the money and also | and Eve," (laughter). compradore's salary,
}
#1
And you used it in your business ?—Yes. Was it for the same reason you utilised the Is Mr. Holmes your master or your partner? money received from Sit Ledng Kit-I started-In this business he is my partner. off by using the money against his business. He went away and left me. We had a row.
Where is this $3,000 ? Is it deposited against the title deeds P-I hold two promissory notes.
Are they payable on demand ?—One is due in in December.
How much ?-$1,00 '.
Who is the maker ? —A Qhinsman. His name ?-I don't remember.
Ch, Mr. Holmes, you remember the man to whom you lent $1,000 P-Itäs in my books.
You remember that perfectly well ?-His name is Young.
There are hundreds of Youngs? What was his name ?-His name is Yeung.
And the other promissory note? Who made it P-A Chinaman.
What was his name ?—I can't remember, Was it payable on demand ?—Yes.
Have you discussed this business ?→Why should we discuss it when we have not received the contract.
By the Court-He was to have some profit out of the contract for labour.
The hearing was adjɔurned,
The hearing of the obarge against H. 8. Holmes, of having obtained $8,000 by false pre- tences, was continued before Mr. J. E, Wood at the Magistracy on October ist.
M. O. F. Dixon (of Messrs. Hastings and Hastings) prosecuted, and Mr. H. K. Holmes appeared for the defene».
The Accused, recalled, was further examined by Mr. Dixon. He said the pass book produced was the only banking socount he had had since March 14th. He paid most of the $5,000 ressived from Sit eang Kit into his banking socountă. Bit