[June 26, 1909.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
Did
you ask him for a loan?-I did not. Did you ask him to give you any money-I
with Mr. George Hastings through answering an advertisement in the Law Times and had an interview with Mr. Hastings in Preston. Mr. Hastings said he was acting on behalf of his brother, Mr. John Hastings, of Hongkong. He told witness the salary his brother was pre pared to pay and said he was coming out to join his brother with a view to succeed. ing him in the business. Witness discussed the terms and witness asked what were his pros- pects if he came to the East. Mr. Hastings said that if he suited he should oventually obtain a partnership. Witness furnished him with testimonials and health certificato and entered into a four years' agreement. He arrived here on 6th October, 19.4. Under that agreement he was paid £325 a year. He stayed at the Peak Hotel on first coming here and shared a room with a man.
He thought it cost him about $110 a month. He had very little other expenses that year. They would not average more than $150 a month. During that year he received something like $275 to $300 a month. He saved more than $100 every month. When he had been here six months Mr. Hastings went home on leave and he gave witness an increase in salary before he left.
Why?-One reason was that exchange went up very high and I complained.
When did you get the next rise-Probably in October, 1905. Under my agreement I was entitled to £25 rise after
my first year.
Did you get a rise after that?--I don't think I was entitled to a rise in the second year. asked to be put on a dollar basis. I was paid sterling, but on a fixed dollar basis of 11.
Before Mr Hastings left in 1907 what did you do?-Icommunicated by letter to Mr. George Hastings,
What about?—I asked for something more definite than a verbal promise that I should have a partnership.
Have you a copy-I made a draft before I sent it and have the draft now. Negotiations for the agreement were carried on between Mr. John Hastings and myself.
What agreement?-My second agreement in 1907,
Had Mr. George Hastings been made a partner?-In January.
After this did you get the agreement of 17th April, 197?—I did.
In the month before March you were acting in the Reuter, Brockelmann case ? I was acting for the Kwong Hing Cheong firm who brought an action against Reuter, Brockelmann & Co.
Who were the plaintiffs --The Kwong Hing Cheong firm of silk merchants. Large sums were paid on account of costs amounting in all to $13.000 or 14,000, a good deal of which was paid to me personally in fairly large sums. Whenever I received the money myself I entered it in the rough cash book. The entries indicate who receive the money, the signatures
од
|
|
did not.
Is it true he paid you $150 for yourself?-It is not true.
Look at 23rd June. Kwong Hing Cheong, action against R., R. and Co., further on account of costs, clients $1,500.-That would go to the clients' account.
Did
you receive that yourself?—I think so. It is in my handwriting.
Did you ask Wong Hui Tong for any money on that occasion except >1.500? - I did not.
Did you receive any money from him except the $1,50 -I did not.
It is untrue when he says he lent you $2 0 on that day? - It is untrue.
Will you look at the entry 29th June Kwong Hing Cheong firm further on account of costs, clients $3.50 - writing, I think.
That is in Kent's hand-
Did you receive that $3.500?—I did not. Do you know who received it—It was received Hastings, but the bank being closed it was kept the 27th, two days previously, by Mr.
on
in the safe.
by Wong Hui Tung?—None.
Did you have any money paid you that day
lend you any money?--I did not.
Did you ask Wong Hui Tung on that day to Did you receive money on that day as a loan or as a gift from him?-I did not.
Have you ever at any time asked Wong Hui to give you or lend you any money?—I did not. Did he ever at any time lend or give you any money - Never at any time.
before a special jury near the end of July.
When was the action tried?—It was tried
After the action was tried and before the Tung to pay any more money-No. question of appeal arose did you ask Wong Hui
It is not true. The Chief Justice had reserved
Is it true you were paid on July 23rd, 5 the question of costs on that action. Judgment was given on that question about July 25th, costs until judgment was given. and it would have been unnecessary to ask for
You say it is untrue Wong Hui Tung paid you $5 o-It is untrue.
It is untrue that he paid it and that he asked for a receipt -It is untrue.
Witness mentioned that ho frequently saw Wong in connection with the appeal and that he put entries in his diary when there were chargeable items. After judgment was given took the preliminary step for appealing to the against Reuter, Brockelmann and Co.. they Privy Council. but ultimately abandoned that idea.
'
Prior to that witness explained to Wong that if the appeal was proceeded with it would be a costly business and explained that it would be necessary to ask him for a further substantial sum on account of costs incurred here and in Loudon. the receipts do not count for much. of the
Previously witness had received out Your Lordship will probably remember some of Kwong Hing Cheong as security for costs court the money deposited by the those receipts were sigued by Mr. George and that had been credited to their account Hastings, although my writing appears in the in the ledger. They were of opinion that it was cash book. I should say a great deal of this money paid in respect of costs was not paid by at that time, but he satisfied them that the re- unnecessary to pay anything further for costs the witness Wong Hui Tang himself. but quest was a reasonable que. paid by his agent in Hongkong. He was always for an account which was given and fully explain- Then Wong asked careful to obtain a receipt when he paid money | ed to him. That account was a copy of the and to have it translated by the interpreter. ledger and he said he had not been cred- Both he and his agent were careful men. ited with $2,000 which he had paid.
On January 27th, 1908, what was the state of had before him the portfolios which form the Witness the action --I should imagine that the plead-bills of costs. The entries in his diary were ings were about closed.
copied on the work sheets and they formed the
}
There is an entry, $500 on account of costs? | bill of costs. -Yes.
In whose handwriting is that?---Mine. Was anything else paid to you by the Kwong Hing Cheong on that day besides the $500:- No.
Did you ask Wong to lend you any money?- I did not.
2 word.
Does Wong talk English-Not Hung always acted as interpreter.
Did you receive $200 that day as a loan?-No. Did you receive it as a present? - I did not. Look at the 15th May. Kwong Hing Cheong further on account of costs, $350.
Did you receive that money -I think so. It is in my handwriting.
On that occasion did you ask Wong Hiu Tung for any money?--I may have asked him for the $350. Probably I asked him for that on the previous day.
The Chief Justice-He said the account was $2,000 wrong.
Witness - It was. I told him the money was in two banks,
I had not given instructions for him to be supplied with a copy of the ledger. The instructions I gare were that he should be supplied with a statement show- ing how matters stood between his firm and Messrs. Hastings and Hastings. It was by mistake that he was supplied with a copy of the ledger, which was unintelligible.
Witness added that he explained the account in detail, and
on the 11th January, 1908. the firm paid $2,000 for costs. Reuter, Brocklelmann decided not to go on with their appeal, and when Hastings and Hastings had made out their solicitors and clients bill they were then in a position to settle up with the client. Witness then mentioned what took
653
place at the interview with Wong as to settling up. He prepared the final account, which was explained by Tam to Wong, who seemed to be satisfied except with regard to two itemb-one of $6,000 and another of $3,000 solicitor and client. He asked that these should
ما
reduced, and witness replied that he would go through them again and would do KO if he could. He called a day or two later. By that time witness had prepared the final account. It had been copied and r Hastings asked witness to go through it and see that nothing was omitted. He did so and made a few alterations. He made it a little Wong asked to be allowed to have some- thing of the money standing to his credit and Mr Hastings asking witness if he approved, the latter replied that they might let him have $10,000 on account. A cheque for that amount was mude out and handed to him. He remembered being consulted by Wan Hi on the 8th January.
more.
Who brought Wan Hi?-He was brought into my room by Tam who was interpreter in
informed me that a friend had been arrested on What happened at that interview -The man
a charge of administering a noxious drug with a view to procuring abortion. He said the case was coming on that day. He said his triend's name was Wan Sui Po, sud he asked what our charge would be. As the charge was a serious one and might be committed to the sessions I could not be too speculative and mention à lump sum. It is my invariable practice when a sum is agreed upon for costs to enter it in the fough cash book, I don't think there was any agreement as to costs. I asked him to pay something on account before I would go up to the Police Court, because in cases of this kind we do not give credit. He paid $30 and I and he and Tam went up to the Police Court. The police told the Magistrate not intend to go on that unless they had further evidence they did with the case. The Magistrate adjourned the case, and as the police had intimated they would not be likely to proceed I did not trouble to take the man's statement. The Magistrate assured me that if the case came on again he would give a formal remand if the police were going on with it.
connection with that matter.
It is not true that Wan Hi went to see you after the case-It is not true.
Nor that he paid $20 to you ?- It is not true. Is it true you placed the $20 in your right haud drawer-No.
money in your drawer:- Yos.
You heard Tam say that he saw you place the
Have you ever done so-No, that is my private drawer. I have frequently received money from clients and not been able to hand it over to the cashier, and I always put all money belonging to the office in my safe. It is just as easy to put it there as in my drawer.
◊
The Chief Justice-Have you a safe in your room?
Witness Yes, it was my safe.
-
Not your own safe-In my room while I was there.
The hearing was adjourned.
SEVENTH DAY.
MR. DIXON'S EXAMINATION CONTINUED. Witness said he saw Gulab for the first time in January.
The Chief Justice - Wo are not disposed to pay much regard to Gulab's evidence. I think that charge might be dropped. We could not possibly accept his evidence supposing it stood alone, and it certainly does not strengthen the case in any way. Therefore in these circum- stances I think that part should be dropped.
Witness spoke to seeing Captain La Picque on 26th March. Captain La Picque gave him a power of attorney in his name to sell 650 shares of the Messageries Cantonaise to 8
hinese syndicate for whom witness was acting. whom, he introduced him, and on explaining Witness took the Captain into Mr. Hastings, to
the business on which Captain La Picque had come, Mr, Hastings suggested that his name should be added to that of Mr. Hastings. This was done. After that interview Mr. Hastings said he wanted to speak to him after five o'clock and witness went to his room after the staff had left. Mr. Hastings said he wanted to speak to him about a very serions matter. He said he had reason to believe that