336
THE HONGKONG. WEEKLY PRESS AND board and lodging. Under the circumstances he thought the Court would grant a stay of execution.
We all know of one accident when the steamer collided with a night-soil boat ?-Yes.
You were in charge then ?-Yes. And the case was decided in my favour at the Harbour Office.
On the 5th December last the propellor of the ship got entangled with another night-soil boat ?
Mr. Harris objected.
His Lordship, however, did not uphold the objection.
Question repeated-That is the case you have quoted.
We will take another. On the 1st March your ship struck the San Cheong ?--I never struck her.
Well, what happened ?-We drifted on top of her.
And the Company had to pay $50 for her repair?Yes, not for damage to our ship.
On the 14th February when your ship arrived at the wharf her propellor became entangled with some rope and that cost $20 P-I had nothing to do with it,
That was a fact?-I had nothing to do with it. I was not on board.
You admit two accidents while you were on board and one while you were not ?--In both cases I was exempted from blame by the
Harbour Master.
Whether you were to blame or not these accidents have cost the Company $100?-I can't tell you.
In my opinion it would be about $100.
There have been complaints about your taking a long time to moor P-I had a good reason. You know complaints have been made to the manager about your taking so long to get the steamer alongside the wharf ?-No.
Why do you take such a long time to get in? The ship wants careful handing. Why ?-I was afraid I might damage the ship and had to handle her more carefully than if I was on an ordinarily good boat.
You know the other captains take about fifteen minutes P-I know I take six minutes.
The other captains take fifteen minutes and you take from one to three hours -Witness laughed and replied--I give it up.
Will you swear you take six minutes as an average P-Yes, between six and eighteen minutes.
Then you don't take a long time in getting in -Well, I have been told I did it very quickly.
Was the manager satisfied ? -He never complained to me.
Re-examined His successor was receiving $225 a month, which seemed a good reason why witness should be dismissed. In the cases mentioned witness was held not to blame and the, owners of the night-soil boats were fined.
John Mouusey, master mariner, said he was chief officer of the Shui On. He was formerly master of a river steamer, but was dismissed for taking a European engineer. He was dismissed summarily, but received three, months' wages.
Cross-examined-He did not know of a rule at the Harbour Office that a master could be dismissed at a month's notice. The master of a river steamer was entitled to three months' or six months', the same as the master of an ocean steamer.
The managing director of the defendant Company spoke to receiving complaints as to the long time the plaintiff took in mooring the steamer and detailed the accidents and what they cost. He also referred to occasions when plaintiff quarrelled with Captain Cameron of the Shun Lee and with others.
Cross-examined-He transferred Mr. Cooper from the Shun Lee because of his quarrel with Captain Cameron, and appointed him to the com- mand of the Tak Hing.
The hearing was adjourned.
A MONEY LENDER'S CLAIM. Mungal Singh sued J. H. Pidgeon for $40 due on a promissory note.
Mr Leo D'Almada who appeared for defend- ant, admitted the debt. He applied for a stay of execution on the ground that the defendant had on the 5th of January this year filed his petition in bankruptcy. That petition was not proceeded with because debtor had no assets and was then out of employment. Since then he had obtained employment and was earning $60 a month, out of which he had to pay $50 for
His Lordship gave judgment for plaintiff and allowed a stay of execution for a month.
Tuesday, October 12th.
USURY EXTRAORDINARY.
Prem Singh, an Indian watchman, brought an action against S. Quistiongco, described as an artist in the employ of the South Ching Morning Post. Mr. Gardiner appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. F. X. D'Almada appeared for the defendant.
Mr. D'Almada on behalf of defendant con sented to judgment and asked that an order be made for payment by instalments. The plaintiff, he said, originally lent defendant in March, 1907, the sum of $100 and charged interest at the rate of $10 per month. Defendant paid interest up to June and failing to pay in July the promissory note was renewed for $110. Sums of $11 were paid as interest until October, when defendant again failing to pay the promissory note was renewed for $120 and the interest was accordingly raised to $12. That continued for some time, but in January 1908, the defendant was unable to pay the month's interest and the promissory note was renewed for $130, interest being again raised to $13 per month. This arrangement continued until April, when for the same reason the promissory note was renew- ed for $140 and the interest increased to $14. As the defendant found it more difficult to keep up the payments the promissory note was re- newed periodically from $150 by $10 a month until in June of this year the defendant had signed a promissory note for $240 with interest at $24 a month. On July 1st the defendant paid $25 in interest, and various other small payments were made, but on September 6th plaintiff issued a writ.
His Lordship Well, he had to be consistent I suppose.
Mr. D'Almada-I have witnesses who can speak to seeing the promissory note for $150 being renewed and given.
His Lordship-Have you any receipts for your payments?
Mr. D'Almada-No, my Lord. Those Indian money-lenders and usurers do not give receipts. His Lordship-How much have you paid altogether?
Mr. D'Almada-We have paid altogether $270 in interest, and my client does not want to go on paying interest without being able to clear off the capital.
Defendant stated on oath that his salary was $130, and that he had a wife and five children to maintain.
Mr. D'Almada said his client was only receiving $115 a month, as his employers were deducting $15 a month in respect of a loan made by them to him.
His Lordship said it was absolutely inconceiv- able that an intelligent man like the defendant should have consented to such an arrangement. In reply to his Lordship the defendant said that he was forty years of age, and his Lordship added that he hoped he would consider his wife and family and be a little more business-like in his business affairs.
An order was made for payment at the rate of $2 a month, costs amounting to $40 to be paid forthwith.
Thursday, 14th October.
ALLEGED BREACH OF AGREEMENT.
Edward Arnold Kennedy brought an action against Mak Nam Woon, proprietor of tha Belle View Hotel, for the recovery of $1,00', $500 being as to damages for breach of an agreement whereby defendant agreed to employ plaintiff as manager of his hotel, and $500 as to damages caused to plaintiff by the wilful and intentional act of the defendant in preventing the plaintiff from continuing with his application for a licence under the Licences Ordinance of 1898. Mr. Reader Harris, of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Eldon Potter (instructed by Mr. Crowther Smith of Messrs. d'Almada and Smith), appeared for defendant.
Mr. Harris said that he intended to drop the second part of the claim. The agreement stated that plaintiff was to be engaged as
[October 16, 1969. manager of the Belle View Hotel and the first clause stated that his agreement commenced as soon as the licence had been obtained. The licence was applied for by him with the authority of the defendant on August 30, when the case
After was adjourned.
the adjournment plaintiff asked defendant when he would be wanted again and defendant said he would not be wanted until September 10, that being the date to which the application was adjourned. Plaintiff went to Canton and on September 6th he saw in a paper an advertisement stating that William Winch was making an application for the
licence of the Belle View Hotel. Plaintiff treated that as a notice that defendant no longer was bound by the contract and he immediately set about obtaining employment and went to see Messrs. Purnell and Pagett. Later he came to Hongkong and saw the defendant's solicitor.
Plaintiff stated that he was formerly a ganger in the employ of Messrs. Butterfield and Swire at Taikoo, but in August last he received a chit rom defendant asking him to discuss business. Plaintiff went and was asked by defendant what he would take to manage his hotel. Defendant offered $60 a month, which he raised to $100 with all found Plaintiff declared he would not leave his present employment for anything less than $125, and next day he saw defendant at the office of Messrs. d'Almada and Smith, where defendant agreed to pay him $125 a month, free board and lodgings, and $27 a month for drink | allowance. On August 18th he left his was always employment because defendant sending him chits and plaintiff could not be Subsequently an certain of getting away. application was made on the 30th August for a licence in his name, and when they returned to Messrs. d'Almada and Smith's office the agree- ment was signed. Afterwards Mr. Smith said he wished to know something more about plaintiff's record in the Customs service, and plaintiff promised to send his papers when he procured them. He went to Canton for a short visit, intending to return on September 6th, and was on the point of returning when he saw an advertisement that an application had. been made to Justices for a licence for the Belle View Hotel in the name of William Winch. He concluded from that that defen- dant had concelled the agreement and remained at Canton for a little time in the hope of find- ing other employment. Later he came to Hongkong and saw Mr. Smith, who told him he did not know why another name had been substituted, and as a matter of fact he advised defendant against it.
Cross-examined- He
was discharged from the Customs after three years' service for striking a coolie. He was not informed by Mr. Smith that the police objected to plaintiff when his application for a licence was made to As a matter of fact he was told the Justices. the opposite. He thought his application had been withdrawn. He had known of other applications having been withdrawn by parties other than the applicants.
Your case is that if you had not seen the ad- vertisement in the China Mail you would have still come to Hongkong?-Yes. I usually look at the paper every morning.
You came to the conclusion that your applica- tion had been withdrawn ?-Yes.
It had never been suggested to you that your name had been withdrawn? No.
Didn't Mr. Smith send your letter to the Captain Superintendent of Police P-I don't
know.
Didn't he show you a copy of a letter he sent to the Captain Superintendent of Police ?—I don't remember.
Didn't Mr. Smith tell you your application had been withdrawn?-No.
Don't you know that in the Government Gazette your own application appeared above that of Mr. Winch ?--I never see the Government Gazette.
Why didn't you communicate with Mr. Smith ?--I thought I had no further business with defendant. I immediately looked out for other employment.
Where did you see that your name was cancel- led P-I saw another person's name in the paper. Did you see the Daily Press of that date?- No.
Did you know that your advertisement appeared in the Daily Press ?—No.