?
556
because Mr. Davidson has come out since George and I alone managed the business,
Hasn't there been three solicitors in the firm of Hastings and tastings ever since you came out? -The first year that Mr. John was away, Mr. George and I alone managed the business. I put it to you that the few months before Mr. Davidson came out was the only time when there were two solicitors only in the firm? That is not so. From March, 1905, till March, 1906, there were only two solicitors in the firm. Mr. George Hastings and myself.
I put it to you that now when Vr. John Hastings leaves this colony in ctober, you are practically indispensable to the firm of Messrs. Hastings and Hastings-I don't think so now that Mr. Davidson is out.
Was not Mr. George relying on your as- sistance after the retirement of Mr. John --I don't know.
At any rate, if Mr. John Hastings intended to leave the business at the end of this year, what would be his object in trying to save salary, commission and holidays? He would still take his share of the profits of the business. The goodwill belongs to him and I suppose he'd want to be paid for it.
If he handed it over to his brother, would you then suggest that he would perjure himself to save salary, commission and holidays? That is a hypothetical question I am not prepared to
answer.
At any rate it is a matter that would affect Mr. John Hastings-What? Giving up the goodwill?
Saving salary, commission and holidays? I don't think it would.
One thing you are certain of, and will swear, is that in order to save salary, commission and holidays Mr. John Hastings has perjured him. self? That is so.
As to this interview of 26th March. I think we are practically agreed as to what was said at the first portion of the interview. Mr. Hastings charged you with having taken certain monies, said he had proof of it, and you denied it-That is so.
And you agree that Mr. Hastings gives a correct account of that first part of the inter- view ?-Quite.
go away
He called you back, and I put it to you he said this. "I have no wish to prosecute you, but I don't see how I can possibly keep you in my office after what has occurred "He said, "I don't want to ruin you, but if
you don't or resign I shall prosecute you.
Mr. Hastings says you stated that you admitted taking money. but they were only small sums, and there were only a few occasions when you did it?-I deny having said that.
Do you think that that is a bona file mistake or an invention?-I think it is an invention,
So that Mr. Hastings evidence is really a mixture of truth and lies That is so.
You also agree that he suggested that you should go to Japan-Ho did, and Shangbai.
Did you tell him that the only things you had received from clients were presents?--I did.
Why did you not put that in your affidarit? -I can substantiate everything in it. It is a much more complete affidavit than Mr. Has tings'.
¿
Why did you not put this matter of receiving presents in your affidavit of June 10th? I did not think it was necessary.
What?-I did not think it was necessary. I was acting under advice.
Bearing in mind your answer of a few min- utes ago, that Mr. Hastings had misconstrued these words of yours about presents, didn't you think that it was of rital importance that it should be in your affidavit?—No, I did not.
The Chief Justice-I don't know in what manner this affidavit was put in, or why it was put in.
Mr. Potter-It was put in in this case. The Chief Justice-Has it been referred to before?
Mr. Potter No.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
put it in at that time. These affidavits were only to make a prima facic defence. We are not bound to disclose all our cards in that affidavit. I made a note of it two days after the interview with Mr. Hastings.
!
|
|
The Chief Justice- For what purpose was it put in ?
Mr. Potter--When we put in an affidavit in support of the motion that Mr. Dixon should be struck off the rolls he replied with this affidavit. (To witness)-I want to know again, Mr. Dixon, why did you not mention this matter about presents; you know in a measure it was a defence? It was not considered necessary to
t any rate you did not think it of sufficient importance to put it in your affidavit-We did not think at that stage of the case that it was necessary to put more in the affidavit than is in it.
Int you agree it is a very important fact? It may be an important fact ultimately.
You admit. Mr. Dixon, that you have taken presents from clients? - When the transactions were completed : never during the progress of a
case.
What form did these presents take?—I have had articles of jewellery and on a few occasions I have had money for the purpose of buying something. I had two blackwood chairs once.
Was this with the knowledge of your em ployers? When I have presents?
Yes I received last Christmas a silver cigarette box which I showed to Mr. John Hastings.
Then it was without their knowledge? with their knowledge.
No.
your
When you received the money were employers aware of it? - I don't know. I think that I received a present of money last summer and Mr. George Hastings was aware of it, or I think he was.
The Chief Justice You say you received money to buy something. Did you invest the money in buying articles -Well, possibly not, my Lord.
Mr. Potter-Can you tell what the amounts were? I received 100 on two occasions and $50 on two occasions. That is practically all I have received in money,
Can you suggest why Mr. Hastings should write this private letter to his brother? It was part of the scheme for getting rid of me.
Do you know that this letter could not be put in as evidence by Mr. Hastings himself? That is so.
How, therefore, could it assist him in his scheme for getting rid of you? He mentioned in his affidavit that he had written this letter.
How could it support his scheme to get rid of you? That is a point of law which I am not prepared to disenss.
It is not a point of law. How Could it assist his scheme to get rid of yon? Can't you answer?
The Chief Justice He has answered that it was referred to inr. Hastings' affidavit.
Until you received this letter of the 31st March from Mr. Pastings had you done any. thing at all in this matter? I put down in writing what took place at the interview I had withr. Hastings,
Did you take any other steps? – I saw Lung.
1
When did you see him? I tried to get hold of him on the 28th arch and succeeded on the 31st
arch.
Had yon seen Mr Harstou at this time --No. Can you suggest any reason why Mr astings should write this letter to you - He wanted to get rid of me.
It was part of the scheme -It was. Do you remember at what time you received this letter?--it was brought to me just about a quarter to fire.
And later you saw Mr. Hung ? Yes at my house.
When did you see Mr. Harston -Next morning.
Is Mr. Tung in the colony at present? Your clients communicated with him last. I don't know. Que of your witnesses says he is in Canton.
Are you calling him as a witness P--I am not, Don't you think he would be a valuable witness for you?-Don't you think he would be essential on your behalf.
+
|
Will you answer the question? Don't you think he would be a useful witness on your part? I think he would be a most valuable witness on my behalf if he repeated in court the statement which he made to me in presence of Mr. Gedge and Mr. arston.
•
Why did you not get him to makę affidavit !—te declined.
an
You had interviews with him on several occasions and he declined to make an affidavit?1
-Yes.
|
|
|
[June 26, 1909.
I take it when you went to Mr. Harston that you thought it of considerable importance that you should clear your character of these charges?
Yes.
That was one of the objects with which you went to Mr. Harston?-Yes, and to prevent myself from being driven out of the colony by Mr. Hastings,
In the letter written on your behalf by Messrs. Ewens and Harston to Mr. Hastings referring to certain substantial right of yours, do
you agree with Mr. Harston that you have substantial rights? — Certainly.
I put it to you that you were prepared to forego these substantial rights if Mr. Hastings allowed you to practise in Hongkong?--I was prepared to forego my rights to a partnership and my rights to a holiday if allowed to practise.
You were prepared to enter into an agreement with a man who had charged you with appro- priating money?-At that time.
You were prepared to enter into an agreement with him ?--Yes, because at that time I did not caro what Mr. Hastings said so long as he did not make it public.
At that time you were not prepared to take any steps to clear your name ?—I am not a rich
I
man-
Is that so? - Take my answer. I am not a rich man and could not afford to engage in heavy litigation with Mr. Hastings. at that time I did not consider that there was sufficient publicity to do me any harm.
That is my answer. It was only known to two persons. Mr. Hastings said he had spoken only to Mr. Wilkinson and Mr. May.
Were these not firms with which you would come into contact if you commenced business in Hongkong? Yes. I did not consider the charge would do me much harm and I could not afford to engage in heavy litigation to clear my
character.
When you received the letter of 31st March why didn't you at once deny the charges?—I saw Mr. Harston next day. There was no delay on our part.
Why did you want to see lung first?- Because I wanted to know what had taken place between ang and Mr. Hastings told me that Hung had admitted everything.
After r. Harston wrote the letter of 2nd April you had another interview with Mr Hastings? Yes.
Didr. Hastings say to
What do you you mean by admitting this thing to me and then going to a firm of solicitors and instructing them to deuy it? No, he said, "Well, Dixon, so you have decided to fight me.'
That statement then is not true ?-It is false. Did you say "I must deny it or I shall go under altogether "?—No.
It is also false?—It is.
Did he tax you with haring made an admis- sion at the first interview ?—He did.
What did he say?-He said," Your have already admitted taking office money and no one will believe your word against mine."
That I put to you is a pure invention on the part of Mr. Hastings ?—Yes.
At that second interview, I think you agree with Mr. Hastings that he said Why don't you go to Canada? If I were a young man down on my luck I should go to Canada ?—I don't think we are agreed.
-These
What did that convey to your mind?- words?
Yes- -That he desired me to go away and he suggested Canada.
If you did not make an admission at the first interview why should he suggest that you should go to Canada --Because in the interval "bq- tween the first interview and the second he seemed to think that I had made an admission, at the first.
There was no one present at that interview except Mr. Hastings and yourself?--No.
What, therefore, was the use of his taxing you with an admission you never made?-I don't know.
You admit it would have been important had there been a third person present ?-It would have been more important than if there had been only two present.
Ďo you suggest any reason why he should tax you with there being no third party present?— No.
I believe it was in Yarch, 1907, that the Kwong Hing Cheong firm consulted you about their