December 12, 1208.]
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE MR. H. H. J. GoMPERTZ (ACTING PUISNE JUDGE).
CLAIM AGAINST A SHIPPING COMPANY.
Yan Wan, the lawful husband of You Yan Shi, deceased, and Yun Ah Mui, the infant daughter of both, brought an action against the Indo-China Steam Navigation Company Limited to recover $1,000 damages for loss sustained by the death of the said Yun Yan Shi, caused by negligence of the defendants' servants in navi. gating the s.s. Loong Sang in the harbour of Hongkong on 19th June, 1908, whereby a colli. sion took place between the Loong Sang and the licensed junk No. 2666 on which the said Yan Yan Shi was a passenger. The deceased had been in receipt of from $12 to $15 per month as wages and had contributed up to the time of her death towards the household expenses of the plaintiff and had paid solely for the maintenance and education of Yun Ah Mui. Mr. Otto Kong Sing appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Hastings appeared for the defendants.
Mr. Otto Kong Sing said Messrs Hastings and Hastings had written to him stating that they were willing to assume for the pur poses of the case that the collision was due to negligence.
Plaintiff gave evidence as to the death of his wife.
Mr. J. Hastings cross-examined plaintiff as to his marriage. He had, he said, never seen her before he married her. An old woman acted as go-between and he paid $50. There was no wedding chair and she walked into his house.
Was there any document exchanged between you and this woman?-No.
Did you live with her until the time of her death P-Yes.
Where did you live? We lived in Tai Wo Street for two months and in another street after that.
How do you know she was a widow?-She said so.
You took no means to inquire ?—Yes.
Of whom did you inquire?-The go-between. Would you be surprised to hear your wife had a husband in the country at the time you married her -No; she had no husband.
Do you know a man has put in a petition to the Registrar-General for compensation for the death of his wife who was the woman in ques tion -I don't know.
Did you go to Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist's office to ask them to make a claim for your wife ?—I don't know.
Did you ever go to any lawyer except Mr. Otto Kong Sing to make a claim for your wife ?--No.
Mr. Hastings then read a letter from the solicitors mentioned to Messrs. Jardine. Mathe- son and Co. at the request of plaintiff.
You did not instruct Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist to write that letter? No.
You failed to identify the body when asked by the police? No. I never saw any body.
You went to the Mortuary ?—Yes. With whom ?--I went alone.
What was her husband's name - I don't know. Why should I ask?
You were not interested?-No I was not interested.
Plaintiff said his wife earned from 40 to 50 cents a day. When she was not at work she sat at home.
Re-examined-Is it the custom for Chinese to see their wives before marriage?—I did not see mine
any way (Laughter).
A Chinese woman also gave evidence. She came from the same village as the plaintiff and spoke to deceased living with the plaintiff.
Cross-examined-Did you know her parents?
-No.
You knew her all your life and don't know her parents ?-I made a mistake. I did not know her all my life.
How long?-Four or five years. She was married to this man?—Yes. How do you know?-Her husband is related to my people.
You know that she lived with this man and that is all you know about it-Yes.
Yu Lum, undertaker, gave evidence as to the removal of a body from the Water Police Station to the Mortuary at Yaumati.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
Sanitary Inspector Ward produced a burial order for the interment of the body in question. Plaintiff was not at the Mortuary whilst he was there.
Cross-examined-The body was not identified. Had it been identified. the name would have been entered in the burial order.
Re-examined-If a person called and identified the body and refused to pay for the burial would that not effect the matter?-No.
made ont and identified it, would the name be If a person called after the order had been
inserted? Yes.
Mr. Hastings said the action was brought under the Fatal Accidents Ordinance and the only persons who could claim under that Ordinance were the husband, wife and child. It Was perfectly evident that that meant the legal husband. Plaintiff had to prove in order to succeed that he was the legal husband of the woman alleged to have been drowned. That defendants denied. They admitted that but they denied that he was her husband. plaintiff lived with the deceased for three years, Plaintiff had not produced any evidence in calling evidence to prove that the deceased support of his claim. Mr. Hastings proposed woman was married in China when 18 years old according to Chinese custom : that her husband was still alive; and that plaintiff had no right whatever to bring this action.
Inspector Langley said that the collision in body corresponding to the description given was question was reported on the 19th June, hutn o
recovered from the wreck. The body of a man wo answering the description was found later, but plaintiff failed to identify it.
being recovered from the water.
Sergt. Caygill also gave evidence as to hodies
A clansman of the deceased said she was married 20 years ago to Li Ting. He was place in Tunkun district. There was a bridal present at the marriage ceremony which took
chair.
She lived with Li Ting for a long time
the country. and came to Hongkong. Li Ting remained in
Cross-examined- How old are you? Twenty
nine.
You have told us you were well acquainted with the deceased ?—Yes.
And knew her family?—Yes. Do you know the plaintiff --No. What was her mother's name --I don't know. How should I know a woman's name?
Witness spoke to a visit to Mr. Otto Kong Sing's
's office and said that a man told him to claim relationship with the deceased, but he would not.
Li Ting was next called. He said he lived in Lam-chun village in Tunkoon. He was married, Yan Mun was his wife. She died on the 19th asking for compensation for her death. He was June last. He petitioned the Registrar-General married to her in Lam-chun village. She was then 18 years of age.
What ceremonies were there?-There was the
bridal chair and some music!
Were there any documents exchanged?—Yes. What were they called-The usual compli- ments of pork and cakes.
I mean the writing? The date of birth. child name and so on, written on red paper.
Had you any children by her?—'
-Two.
She has not lived with you for some years?—
officials she has not lived with me. Since I have been employed by the Chinese
|
How long is that?-Two years ago. And she came to Hongkong?-I only heard last year she had come to Hongkong.
Cross-examined--
-Where the wedding documents-They were destroyed after we were married.
ara
}
Mr. Bailey appeared for defendant. Mr. E. J. Grist appeared for plaintiff, and Argument ensued as to procedure, and his Lordship reserved judgment.
Thursday, 10th December.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (8IR F. PIGGOTT).
A COMPRADORE'S LIABILITY. which S. J. David and Company, merchants, The hearing was continued of the action in sued Chan Ut Chui, a compradore formerly in amount of damages due under agreement. their employ, for the recovery of 3648,816 the
Defendant counterclaimed for the return of his security. 855.000, alleging that he had fulfilled the terms of his contract.
Hon. Mr. Pollock, K.C., instructed by Mr. ter, appeared for the plaintiffs, while defendant Jackson, of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Mas-
instructed by Mr. J. Scott Harston. was represented by Sir Henry Berkely, K.C.,
Sir Henry Berkeley said he intended to move for judgment on the fact before the Court, and if the Court was unable to give the judgment he asked for he would suggest that an inquiry similar to that which his Lordship ordered in the case of Chan Kee and Sassoon be directed, Counsel proposed to put in certain documents which were admitted by the other side.
in any documents without calling evidence.
Mr. Pollock-My friend is not entitled to put
tained a record of matters that had passed.
Sir Henry Berkeley said the documents con.
His Lordship-You will have to prove the reports.
Sir Henry Berkeley-They are admitted by desired first of all to direct the attention of the the other side. Proceeding, Counsel said he
Court to the nature of the action, and to the
по
parties to it. His Lordship would see that the
Chan Ut Chui, and that the action was confined parties were Messrs. S. J. David and Co. and
to a claim to recover damages from the defendant to recoup the plaintiffs for losses sustained by them on contracts made for the sale of yarn with certain Chinese persons in this Colony for whom the defendant was stated to be surety This was a specific action, and there was no question was whether the plaintiffs were entitled other question before the Court. The sole
to recover in this action from the defendant any sum in respect of the losses which they sustained. He submitted that there was agreement between the parties; it was absolutely imaginary on the part of the plaintiffs. When of claim. Sir Henry Berkeley had no doubt that his Lordship read paragraph 3 of the statement he imagined that his learned friend was quoting part of an agreement between the parties. If fying glasses in the Colony, and looked the his Lordship got the strongest pair of magni- agreement through from beginning to end, he allegation on the part of the plaintiffs. What would not find one single word justifying any such
his friend had done was to misquote the proviso for redemption, aud endeavour to convert it into an agreement or a covenant to pay. Ha had absolutely mistaken the remedy in this case, security, the plaintiffs had brought an action Instead of bringing an action to foreclose the
for damages for breach of contract, placing the defendant, as it were, on a footing with the Chinese contractors for whom he was surety under the mortage.
His Lordship-It is customary here, appar- ently, to link on the compradore agreement with the compradore mortgage. That is pre- cisely what was done in Chan Kee's case, and
Why My father did it. them away and something ate them up.
Intentionally? Not intentionally. He put there I held that it was proper.
Who was Yan Mun's father?-Yan San. And her mother's name?—I have forgotten. His wife sent home a little money for the children. He did not know that she was living with another man
Re-examined-He was employed as a militia man on the forts. That was why he was away from his wife.
The case was put in Friday's list.
A SOLICITOR'S COSTS.
Mr. O. D. Thomson sued Mok In Tong alias Yi On Tong, compradore to Reuter, Brockelmann and Company, for $950.65 professional costs.
Sir Henry Berkeley-The facts are not the samo in the two cases.
His Lordship-Does anything turn on this is a party? somewhat technical point that only Mr. David
points. He submitted that the defendant con- Sir Henry Berkeley said that was one of his
tracted in two capacities! He had made with the plaintiffs an agreement as their servant; and he had also executed a mortgage to Mr. As J. David. There had been no assignment of that mortgage by Mr. A. J. David to Mesers. S. J. David and Co. Counsel submitted that in the absence of any assignment of that mort-