November 23, 1908.]
IMPORTANT CASE UNDER THE LIQUOR ORDINANCE.
MANAGER OF R.E. CANTEEN SUMMONED.
An interesting case came on for hearing before Mr. J. R. Wood at the Magistracy on Nov. 18 when A. M. Thornhill, manager of the Royal Engineers Canteen, was summoned for retailing liquor without a licence.
Detective-Sergeant Appleton prosecnted, and Mr. Otto Kong Sing appeared for the defendant. Detective-Sergeant Appleton deposed to giving a Chinese boy a chit and a 5 bill on the evening of the 11th instant. The chit bore the assumed named of "J. Long." and was handed to the boy at the Central Police Station. Witness then went with the boy to Wellington Barracks and told him to get one bottle of port wine and one bottle of whisky. He saw the boy enter the barracks gate and go towards the Canteen. After an absence of about five minutes he returned with the bottles of port wine and whisky produced, and returned 82.90 change.
Cross-examined, witness said he made the duplicate chit at the Police Station before pro- ceeding to Wellington Barracks. He did not know what the Army regulations were with regard to "boys" entering Wellington Bar- racks. Witness did not see the boy come out of the Canteen at the Barracks and go back again. He did not know whether the con- tractor was permitted to sell liquor to soldiers and to soldiers' families. He proceeded in the same way as he would have done in connection with unlicensed premises.
A Chinese cook employed at the Central Station stated that he took the chit into Wellington Barracks to buy some spirits. A servant boy asked where he came from, and he replied Sanwafong. The boy then asked the name of his master, and he said he did not know. The defendant was not present,
Cross-examined, witness said he did not tell the sentry who stopped him at the Barracks gate that he was a soldier's boy.
Didn't the bar boy refuse to sell you liquor until you produced a chit from your master?- No.
His Worship (to. Sergeant Appleton)--How are you going to connect the defendant with this?
Sergeant Appleton-By bringing a military officer up here to prove that he is the tenant of the canteen.
Mr. Kong Sing-That does not prove that he sold the liquor.
His Worship (to the Sergeant)-We want some proof that this man was connected with the sale.
Sergeant Appleton-I think I can get proof from the police.
His Worship-If you can get some of the police to say that they have been there and have seen him selling liquor, that will be sufficient.
Mr Kong Sing-To sare time will admit that the defendant is the tenant. Your Worship will notice that this is a very different prosecu- tion to the ordinary ones which come before the Court. In the ordinary way it is perfectly clear that people selling liquor without a licence are evading the law, but this is quite a different matter, I am
not astonished at Sergeant Appleton bringing this prosecution, because he is ignorant of the way in which this canteen is conducted. This canteen is provided for by, and conducted under, Army regulations.
His Worship-I don't know anything about
that.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT
purchase in any of the establishments. Under these rules it is impossible for a Chinese servant to enter the Barracks without a pass.
His Worship-Under the home Act a canteen is not required to take out a licence, but it is under the local Ordinance.
If we are,
Mr. Kong Sing-I submit not. then no canteen in the Colony is bona fide.
His Worship-It seems to me, so far as the Ordinance is concerned, that any unlicensed premises is contrary to the Ordinance.
sale on
premises.
Mr. Kong Sing-These are not unlicensed
His Worship-What licence do you hold? Mr. Kong Sing-We hold a licence under the King's regulations, and that overrules all local ordinances.
*
His Worship-These orders apply to England. Mr. Kong Sing-And here as well. You cannot arrest a man in barracks or on board a man-of-war.
His Worship-Do you mean to say that if a theft was committed on army premises the police could not make an arrest?
ours.
Mr. Kong Sing-I am speaking of misdemean
It is to the public safety that criminals. whether soldiers or otherwise, should be subject to the law, but this case does not amount to a crime. If it is an offence, it is not an offence against the Ordinance. I submit it is a misconceived prosecution.
If your Worship is against me, then all the canteens in the Colony are illegal.
His Worship Certainly, and they depend then on Government sufferance. If this prosecution goes ahead, and my view of the Ordinance is rect, then the question of sale whether to soldiers or civilians is irrelevant?
Mr. Hong Sing-Yes.
His Worship-It is quite possible that the defendant may have some permission from the local Government to sell to soldiers, and he may be able to produce that permission.
Mr. Kong Sing-I submit that if I produce a contract between the defendant and the Army Authorities permitting the sale of spirits, my point is made.
you
His Worship-You will have to prove that the Military Authorities were within their rights in giving that permission. I take it have two lines of defence: That you have the right under the home Act to sell to anybody-
Mr. Kong Sing-I don't say that at all. We have the right to sell to soldiers or soldiers' servants without a licence; and my other defence is that this was a sale to a soldier in the the ordinary way.
A. M. Thornhill said he was tenant of the Royal Engineers Cauteen and manager of the Solliers Club. He held a contract with the army officials under the King's regulations and orders, and under that contract he was permitted to sell to soldiers and soldiers' servants. Witness had boys to sell for him, and was not present when this sale took place. He had given strict instruction to the boys that they were on no account to sell to civilians. If Chinese servants produced chits from their masters they could be sold anything over the bar. The rules were that sentries were not to pass Chinese boys into barracks unless they were in receipt of a pass signed by the adjutant. Quite recently a number of military drafts and families arrived in the Colony by the Soudan, and it was possible that the Canteen boys did not know all the soldiers' boys in the Colony. Within the knowledge of witness no sales had been made from the Canteen to others than soldiers or
sailors. He paid the boys' wages and the rent, and the remaining profit was his.
Mr. Kong Sing It's a sort of private concern
Sergeant Appleton-How much do you charge for a bottle of port wine?
Mr. Kong Sing-You ought to know. Witness-About 30 cents. Sergeant Appleton-Isn't it an easy matter for a Chinese who does not speak English to get into barracks ?
1
SUPREME COURT.
Monday, 16th November.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE MR. H. H. J. GQMPERTZ (ACTING PUISNE JUDGE).
THE EFFECT OF A SIGNATURE.
369
The action brought by Leung Hing, trading is Kwang Tack, against Leung Sing for $1,107.95 for money lent or in the alternative goods supplic! and moneys paid by the plaintiff. was continued, the plaintiff having waived the the sum of $107.95 in order to bring his claim within the jurisdiction of the Summary Court. Mr. S. d'Almada, from the office of Messrs. Goldring, Barlow, and Morrell, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Otto Kong Sing appeared for the defendant.
The subject of the action was the expenditure involved in constructing a wharf at Kowloon, plaintiff asserting that he had applied the money to procure the necessary material and producing promissory notes signed by the defendant.
The defendant alleged that he was only a foreman engaged by the plaintiff and denied having signed the notes.
His Honour asked defendant to write his signature which his Honour considered was dentical with the signature on the promissory notes, and gave judgment for the plaintiff.
Wednesday, 18th November.
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (SIR F. PIGGOTT).
MAIDEN SESSION.
When the November session was opened the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Rees Davis, K.C.) said-I am glad to inform your Lordship that no indictment has been filed for the present session and there is no case for trial. The Court was adjourned sine die.
IN APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
BEFORE THE FULL Court.
LANDLORD AND TENANT.
Judgment was given by the Chief Justice and the Puisne Judge in the appeal at the instance of the Humphreys Estate and Finance Company against the decision of the Puisne Judge in the action by Mr. P. W. Goldring for the recovery from appellants of $500 as damages for breach of a tenancy agreement. Sir Henry Berkeley, K.C., instructed by Mr. P. M. Hodgson, of Messrs. Ewens and Harston, appeared for the appellants and Mr. Goldring appeared in person assisted by Mr. E. J. Grist.
The Chief Justice in delivering judgment said:-
In this case the plaintiff was tenant for one year of a flat on the second floor of a house in
Robinson Road, Kowloon, and he sued the land. lord for damages to his property caused by water coming into the flat. I take the following facts from the judgment of the learned Puise Judge. Some of them are challenged by the notice of motion in so far as they are inferences; but we are of opinion that these inference are sound:
On 28th July the Colony was visited by a severe typhoon, causing considerable damage to build. ings. After this storm the plaintiff noticed dampness in the ceiling of the verandah but this passed off and there
was no leakage. The plaintiff apparently thought no more about it and did not inform the defendant company of what he had seen. On the 20th August it rained heavily all day and next morning plaintiff found water pouring in through his roof and ferandah wall, causing considerable damage to his per- sonal effects. He now claims $500 as loss suffered by him in consequence of the preach by defendant company of their agreement to keep the premises in proper repair. No structural defect is alleged and it appears that the damage was caused by water which had socumulated in large quantity on the roof owing to the gutter. The Dalai Lama had decided to leave Peking pipes becoming blocked. They were found to for Tibet on the 23rd inst.
be choked with rubbish and grass, leaves ot
Mr. Kong Sing-The King's regulations and orders provide that a regimental in-within territorial limits. stitute will be established in every unit to supply troops with the best articles at the lowest prices. In the section from which I quote, rules for the management of the garrison are issued, and under the English Licensing Act of 1902 it is not necessary for a person holding a Canteen licence under the authority of the Secretary of State to obtain a justices' licence or a certificate to enable him to obtain or hold any excise licence for the sale of intoxicating liquors. The defendant's licence | is under contract with the Army, and is modified and qualified in this way: only officers, soldiers, and their families and servants are permitted to purchase articles. Civilians are not allowed to
Witness-I don't know whether he would get in, or whether he would get kicked out?
At this stage the hearing was adjourned until Tuesday.