November 8, 1909.]
Mr. Hodgson- When the plaintiff lends money to a boy he ought to have to wait for it. His Lordship-I suppose it was a friendly transaction.
Mr. Hodgson-It may have been, but the plaintiff must take his chance.
His Lordship made an order for payment by instalments of $25 and costs. The first instal- ment must be paid by December 2nd.
Tulsi Singh proceeded against Kunshal Singh to recover $10, money lent.
Plaintiff appeared in person, and Mr. P. M. Hodgson appeared for the defendant.
Plaintiff said he lent the money in July, 1908, and had not since been repaid. He produced a receipt for the loan,
Defendant denied owing the plaintiff any money. He was not in the same regiment, and never had owed him any.
Mr. Hodgson said it was purely a case of one man's word against another.
His Lordship said the case was complicated by the appearance of a solicitor.
Mr. Hodgson stated that he appeared to oblige a friend.
His Lordship entered judgment for the defendant.
SCANT PARTICULARS.
The Shun Shing v. Lam Pong Kat was a case in which the plaintiffs claimed from the defendant the sum of $77.92.
Mr. Leo d'Almada e Castro (of Messrs. Goldring, Barlow and Morrell) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Bulmer Johnston (of Messrs.' Dennys and Bowley) for the defendant.
Mr. Johnston asked his Lordship to dismiss the case, as it was absolutely impossible from the writ for the defendant to find out what he owed, or when he owed it. The speaker had applied for particulars, but they had not been furnished. Mr. Almada-This is a most extraordinary application. I have particulars here, and am quite epared to furnish them.
Mr. Johnston-My friend ought not to issue a writ without a certain amount of particulars And he caused my client to be arrested.
Mr. Almada-And money was paid into Court. I understand the defendant has gone to Swatow.
His Lordship adjourned the case for a week.
"PLENTY OF MONEY.
Chan Sai Sang proceeded against Wong Kwong Fat to recover $386.
Plaintiff was represented by Mr. P. Sydenham Dixon, and defendant appeared in person, and asked to be allowed to pay $50 a month.
Mr. Dixon-We cannot accept that. The defendant is in the service of the Hamburg Amerika Line. He has got plenty of money, and has paid up previously.
His Lordship entered judgment for the plain tiff, and ordered the defendant to pay in monthly instalments of $75.
Defendant asked that the first instalment be made payable on December 1st.
His Lordship-You've just got your salary. Defendant-I've spent it.
His Lordship ordered that the first instalment be paid on December 2nd, and that the costs be paid within seven days.
MISSING HEIRLOOMS.
Chan Yau, houseboy, proceeded against Mrs. Lambert to recover $18 due for wages.
Plaintiff told the Court that towards the end of October his mistress sold out, and told him his services were no longer required. On October 31st he applied for his wages, but the defendant refused to pay him until he found two missing silver milk jugs. Two days previously he had been told to send these articles to the office, and did so. When he and the coolie went for their wages they were arrested and charged with larceny, but the case was dismissed at the Magistracy. Defen- dant declined to pay him, because she said he had lost the two jugs.
Defendant stated that on a Friday, night she asked the boy to give her the silverware to pack, and was told that he had sent it down to the office that morning. Part of the set was received at the office, but two jugs were miss ng. They were very old jugs, and had been in her family for 200 years. That was why she did not wish to lose them. She still hoped that the boy would take them back, and felt sure that he would if he did not get his money. No chit was
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT. signed at the office showing that the goods had been received. Witness gave the boy a chit, but he said he had lost it. The boy had no orders from her to touch the silverware.
His Lordship-Who received these things ?- A European foreman unpacked the goods and showed me what was in the basket. But he did not receive them.
|
How did the boy come to think he should cannot understand. He had no orders to touch have sent these things down ?-That is what I
them, and I cannot think why he interfered.
The plaintiff, in reply to his Lordship, said his mistress told him to put the things in basket, otherwise he would not have done so.
His Lordship-Have you any questions ? Plaintiff No, I only want my wages. His Lordship (to defendant)-Can you call the foreman who received the things at the office ?
\Defendant-Yes, but I don't think he is at all necessary. He is a thoroughly honest man.
His Lordship-Yes, but I want to know what he received.
The hearing was adjourned until Monday morning, when the foreman will be called.
405
PUBLICAN'S LICENSE FOR Astor HouSE
HOTEL REFUSED.
Mr. L. Gameau's application for a publican's licence for the Astor House was then considered, Mr. W. E. L. Shenton (of Messrs. Deacon, Looker and Deacon) appearing on behalf of the applicant.
The Chairman stated that the licensee former- ly held an adjunct licence, and was convicted
for a publican's licence. for a breach of that licence. He now applied There was one for
the same premises before.
Mr. Hooper-Does that mean having a bar? The Chairman-Yes.
Mr.Hooper-I think that might stand over till the end.
The Chairman-Do you wish to object? Mr. Hooper-I'd like to discuss it. The Chairman-Do you wish to object P Mr. Hooper-I don't wish to state my objec tion now. I simply ask as one of the Justices
that the matter be allowed to stand over.
Later, when the application was again con- sidered, all who were not Justices were asked to leave the Court.
Mr. Hooper thought the Press should be allowed to remain as this, and the other applica- tions, were matters which ought to be considered
NNUAL LICENSING SESSIONS. in public. The meet ng was a public one.
The annual meeting of His Majesty's Jus- tices of the Peace was held at the Magistracy
on
the 5th inst., when applications for publican's and adjunct licences were considered. The Justices assembled were Mr. J. R. Wood (Chairman), Lieut. C. W. Beckwith, R.N., Captain W. Lyons, Revs. F. T. Johnson and, C. H. Hickling, Messrs. F. J. Badeley, R. H. A. Craig, A. Rumjahn, A. F. Areulli, T. E. King, G. A. Woodcock, A. Mackenzie, A Shelton Hooper, M. S. Northcote, J. A. Jupp, W. H. Wickham, C. Lafrentz, W. N. Fleming, A. H. Ough and C. Montague Ede.
PUBLICANS LICENCES.
The following publican's licences were granted to the applicants mentioned:-A. F. Davies, the Hongkong Hotel; D. Dorabjee, King Ed- ward Hotel; M. Sternberg, the International Hotel; W. Krater, the Rose, Shamrock and Thistle Hotel; G. Green, the Criterion Hotel; D. Froiman, the Land We Live In Hotel; S. Mayer, the Colonial Hotel; L. Comar, the Cosmopolitan Hotel; E Oliver, the New Tra vellers Hotel; C. W. L. Seeger, the German Tavern; R. H. Whittaker, the Praya East Hotel; I. Cruzman, the Central Hotel; O. E. Owen, the Kowloon Hotel; W. Winch, the Belle View Hotel. The latter applicant was represented by Mr. Crowther Smith, of Messrs. | Almada and Smith.
The Chairman stated that the application for a publican's licence for the Oriental Hotel had been withdrawn.
Mr. Wickham wished to know why? He thought the application should be brought up at the annual sessions instead of at a meeting to be called later.
The Chairman stated that the application was withdrawn because the applicant did not want the licence.
I. Silberman's application for a licence for the Globe Hotel was adjourned because the applicant did not attend.
Mr. Hooper thought he should have been present out of respect for the Justices, and that he should be cautioned.
The Chairman said he would deal with the matter.
Mrs. Meyer, of the Colonial Hotel, and Mr Comar, of the Cosmopolitan Hotel, were then called before the Justices and reminded that there were convictions against them, and warned to be careful in the future, as other- wise they would lose their licences.
With reference to Mr. J. E. Barker's applica- tion for a publican's licence for the Stag Hotel. Mr. Badeley pointed out that the applicant was dead.
The Chairman said he had no other application before him.
Mr. Northcote-Is not there a notice in the papers that Mr. Madar is applying for a licence ? The Chairman-That will be considered at a special meeting.
The matter was held over.
The Chairman overruled Mr. Hooper, and the Press were excluded.
The application was refused.
ADJUNCT LICENCES.
Adjunct licences were granted to the follow ing applicants:-R. Ekhardt, the Cafe Weis- mann, the applicant being represented by Mr. (rowther Smith; K. Uysetsuki, the Sei Foo Row Hotel; Y. Nomura, the Nomura Hotel. This applicant was represented by Mr. P. W. Goldring (of Messrs. Goldring, Barlow and Morrell); J. P. Sommer, the Vienna Café Company, Limited
The applications of G. Bertolone, and R. F. Daly, of the Owl Grill Room, were adjourned as the applicants did not appear. On their ap- pearance they will be cautioned for failing to attend. PEAK HOTEL ADJUNCT LICENCE
When the application of P. O. Peuster for the Peak Hotel was mentioned,
REFUSED.
Rev. Mr. Hickling asked if the police were satisfied about the carrying on of this adjunct licence.
The Chairman-The police have no objection. Rev. Mr. Hickling-I think, if the Justices are prepared to do so, that they should administer a caution. There has been some very close sailing to the wind in this case,
The application was considered in camera, and refused.
ALLEGED LEVYING DISTRESS WAR- RANT WITHOUT AUTHORITY.
The Indian named Alah or Alim, in the em- ploy of Messrs. Davidassoon and Company, who was recently fined for having acted as bailiff in levying a distress warrant, was on Nov. 1st brought before Mr. Wood at the Magistracy, charged with a similar offence said to have been committed on the 26th September. Mr. Dennys appeared to prosecute, and r. Looker conduct-
ed the defence.
Evidence on behalf of the prosecution was that the defendant levied the warrant for arrears of rent at a house at 31, Macgregor Street.
Mr. Looker during the evidence objected to the Magistrate putting questions to a witness, which he said was contrary to procedure.
His Worship replied that he always reserved to himself the right to put questions.
Mr. Looker argued that it was not within the province of the Court to put questions during the examination in chief.
His Worship said he was not putting leading questions.
Mr. Looker contended that at that stage the Magistrate had no right to ask any questions at all. He wished a note taken of the objection.
Defendant denied that he ordered the watch- man to lock the door of the premises on the occasion in question.
The hearing was not concluded when the Court rose.