60
or being a nuisance; neither had Constable Watt or anybody else. Defendant kept dogs which ran loose at night. •
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
What motive do you suggest made the con-plaint from a Chinese about plaintiff's dog, and stable shoot your dog?-Having regard to the Chinese evidence, malice.
Why? Because on the previous Sunday one ot my dogs thrashed his.
Where was the constable then ?-Riding on the ropeway.
You estimate the damage you sustained at $225 P-Yes.
In cross-examination witness said his solicitor must have misunderstood him when he entered the claim at $150.
As a matter of fact you are rather fond of a dog fight, aren't you P-No.
Didn't you look on at this dog fight?—I did not.
This dog that used to fight, did you cure it in one thrashing? - No.
į
Mr. Holborow said it was not necessary to allege the actual marketable value of the dog.
Constable Watt testified to receiving a com-
speaking to the plaintiff about the matter.
His Lordship said there was no doubt it was common ground that the defendant did fire the shot which wounded the plaintiff's dog, but the question was, ander what circumstances. Plain- tiff's case was outlined in the evidence of his two witnesses, who said his dogs were ranging up and down his garden, and that the defendant, without any provocation, fired four shots, the fourth of which wounded the dog. His Lordship did not believe that the dogs did not go out of the garden, because it was absolutely unnatural. Anyone who knew anything about dogs knew how ready they were for a fight. Then the question was whether the defendant could say he fired the shot to protect himself, and his Lord ship could not say that he did. As to the shots fired, the constable said he fired into the air, and his Lordship thought this was quite likely. It was an unpleasant thing to interfere when a lot of dogs were fighting and the Judge was in- clined to find that the defendant did fire two shots in the air. No man would fire a shot when another dog was struggling with his own, because he might hit his own dog, and the plaintiff's dog could not have been running Mr. Goldring told the Court that the story towards the constable, because it was hit in the for the defence was a simple one On this hind quarters. His Lordship was inclined occasion the defendant was going up to his to think that the defendant intended bungalow from the Taipo Road, his boy to frighten the dog, although there was no following him. He had with him two dogs, and doubt that he was aggravated, and there these dogs were attacked by Mr. Ilott's dogs, was no doubt that he was sore. With regard When defendant tried to separate the dogs with to the question of damages, the dog appeared to his stick, one of the plaintiff's attacked him Hebe rather a nondescript animal with an unknown
pulled out his revolver and fired two shots in the father; still the plaintiff was rather attached to air, and as Mr. Ilott's yellow dog still continued to it. It was a great pity that the defendant did worry his dog the defendant fired another shot on
not give some apology in writing, as. the case the ground which struck the dog. Mr. Goldring might then have been settled. Plaintiff was submitted that even if Constable Grant fired entitled to some compensation, and his Lordship deliberately at the dog he was quite justified in would allow him $15 and costs. doing so. A policeman had a right to destroy any dog that attacked him. Any dog out of the way of his master was a wandering dog.
Is that the dog that killed Mr. Waite's fox terrier ?—Mr. Waite's fox terrier is on the railway now. It was not my dog that attacked it, but a dog belonging to the man next door.
You admit that one of your dog is a fighting dog ?-I don't admit that at all.
What about the black dog?—It does not fight more than any other dog.
This closed the plaintiff's case.
His Lordship-If that were so it would not be long before all the dogs in the Colony were destroyed.
Defendant told the Court that on June 8th he was walking along the Taipo Road with two dogs, one a half bull terrier and the other a half spaniel. As witness was passing the plaintiff's bungalow two dogs rushed out and attacked his dog. He tried to separate them, but as he could not he pulled out his revolver and fired two shots in the air. All the dogs ran away except the yellow one, which continued to attack his dog. When witness endeavoured to pull it off the dog attempted to bite him, so he fired a shot on the ground close to the dog, and it must have been the ricochet which struck him. The dog ran away howling, and the Chinese boys, hearing it, came out of the house,
In cross-examination witness said he would consider himself entitled to shoot a dog if it attacked him. He was not firing for the benefit of the public, because the dog was a fierce dog. His servant was about two yards away when he fired the shots. Witness conld not say whether his bull terrier could overcome the yellow dog, and he did not see the necessity of keeping his dog on a string. He shot plaintiff's dog by accident. Couldn't you have left a note for the plaintiff explaining the accident-I could have done, but he left a note with me instead.
Didn't you think it was due to the man to give him an explanation -Not after the note he sent to me.
Police Sergeant Floyd deposed to knowing plaintiff's yellow dog. Mr. Ilott's dogs rushed out at him on May 24th, but ran away when he throw stones at them.
Mr. Holborow informed the Court that the dog was not present, but he could have produced it if formally requested to do so.
His Lordship thought he had plainly intimated his opinion. It was for the plaintiff to prove the dog's value.
Mr. Holborow said his Lordship had already heard the dog was a half-breed. There was nothing to be gained by bringing the animal
into Court.
His Lordship-Haring regard to the fact that the dog is of no particular breed, your claim of something like £30seems a preposterous
one,
Wednesday, July 14th.
A BROKEN AGREEMENT.
Jatkaria limahmed sued Omar C. Moosa to recover $274.18 due in respect of salary and travelling expenses under an agreement of service whereby the plaintiff was engaged by the defendant for a term of three years from September 17th, 1906. The salary had not been paid, and the defendant was dismissed.
Defendant paid $61.82 into Court in satis faction of balance of the wages, and counter- claimed $540 for damages sustained by plaintiff's breach of contract.
|
Mr. Reader Harris (of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist) represented the plaintiff, and Mr. F. X. d'Almada o Castro fof Messrs. Almada and Smith) appeared for the defendant.
|
Mr. arris, in opening, said this was an action on a service agreement. The plaintiff was engaged by the defendant for a term of three years, and Was dismissed before the end of his agreement with certain wages owing. Under the agreement defendunt was to pay the cost of plaintiff's jour ney from Bombay, and should he dismiss him before the termination of his agreement he was to pay his return and part of his salary. After the dismissal of plaintiff on April 5th he asked for his salary, and was advised to return next day. He went back continually after that, and was always put off.
July 19, 1909.
to dismiss plaintiff if he did not apologise. Defendant subsequently gave him formal notice of dismissal, and witness received five months* salary. e declined to accept this in full settlement, so defendant told him to go to No. 4. Old Bailey next evening and they would discuss the matter there. Witness went to. No. 4, and found the defendant with 8 Miss Alice Caroline. Defendant asked him what he intended to do, and witness - said if he did not get all his money he intended to take out a summons. The American girl asked him why he wanted to summons the defendant. She said he was "hard up;” and advised plaintiff to wait. When he went to Macao J, C. Moosa asked him to work there, but he refused.
tell the
In cross-examination witness denied being insolent to Olarikis (one of the partners), and said it was not on that account that he was | asked to apologise. Plaintiff did not defendant that if he want to Macao his (the defendant's) brother would put him in jail. Between April 6th and 18th he did not go to defendant's shop, and was not asked to complete his contract at Macao.
I
His Lordship-Does this agreement expire by effluxion of time, or is it terminated?
Mr. Harris-No, the defendant put an end to the agreement.
Mr. Almada That is the plaintiff's case. We deny it.
Mr. Harris said the plaintiff went to Macao on the 18th ult. to have an interview with J C. Moosa, the brother of the defendant. This Mr. Moosa made certain offers, which plaintiff sub- sequently declined,
|
Plaintiff was then called to the witness stand, but objected to the Court interpreter on the ground that he was a friend of the defendant. His Lordship upheld the objection, and after a short discussion it was agreed that Mr. Mirza, the Puisue Judge's clerk, should interpret.
Plaintiff then told the Court that he was discharged for refusing to write an apology because he returned home late one night. Defendant's partner told the defendant he ought
This closed the case for the plaintiff. Defendant said he engaged the plaintiff through an agent in Bombay. Up to 30th October last he (witness) had carried on business on his own account; since he had formed a partnership. The reason of the complaint preferred against the plaintiff was because, when told by another partner that he had to be in at ten o'clock at night, he said he had only one master, and would not take orders from others. On the following night, plaintiff stayed out all night. When complaint was made to witness, he called the plaintiff before him, said they did not want an insolent assistant, and paid him off. Then he told plaintiff in a friendly way that he could go to Macao to finish his agreement. Plaintiff, however, declined, saying that defendant's brother would lock him up. Witness told him that if he did not go he would enforce the agreement. In consequence of defendant's re- fusal he had to engage another assistant. He never at any time told the plaintiff to meet him at No. 4, Old Bailey.
Cross-examined-What right had your part ners to give orders to the plaintiff ?-They had the right.
Did they take over the service agreements P Yes.
—
What steps did you take to enforce the agreement? I was waiting to see what steps he would take. I think he would have gone if there had not been an instigator.
Do you know Miss Alice Caroline ?-I don't know her at all.
Ever heard of her?-Never. You've never been in No. 4, Old Bailey ?-- Not as far as I remember I always send my assistants to take goods out.
Have you ever been there when you don't want to take goods?—No.
Mr. Harris said he wished to drop his claim on the agreement, and asked his Lordship's permission to amend the writ.
His Lordship-The case you are succeeding on is not the case the defendant had to meet. Now you say there is no agreement
Mr. Harris-It is only the evidence we have heard in the witness box that told me there was no agreement.
His Lordship-Your client would know that. Mr. Harris-e did not.
His Lordship-If the agreement has gone, then the counter-claim fails with costs.
Mr. Almada-The plaintiff in this action ought to be non-suited with costs, and no judg- ment ought to be given on the counter-claim. The plaintiff stood all along on the agreement. I stood my counter-claim on the agreement, and am entitled to judgment on the counter-claim.
His Lordship-If the agreement stands. Mr. Almada -Yes, and to such damage as your Lordship thinks I am entitled. His Lordship reserved judgment.
Thursday, July 15th.
CLAIM FOR MONEY LENT.
to
Action was brought by Li Fuk Hing_against Li Kam Tong, otherwise Mung Sin Wan, recover $300, amount due under a deposit note dated December 27th.
་