November 22, 1909.]
anyone having been deceived, but the jurors were asked to infer from the similarity of the marks, and from the actions of the defendants, that there was a strong probability of decep- tion. The defendants, on the other hand, had submitted affirmative evidence on the point, in the sense that they had called witnesses to speak as to the probability of deception. Donbt- less the jurors would give due weight to the opinions of these witnesses, but it seemed to his Lordship that the question was one which they were quite capable, as business ment of deciding for themselves. Taking the two bottles in dispute, it was for the jury to say whether the similarity was sufficient to be calculated to deceive an in ordinary purchaser. The questions for the jury were:- Whether the defendants' mark was calculated to deceive ordinary purchasers into the belief that they were purchasing the Florida water of the plaintiffs; and, whether there was so much imitation that the Florida water bear- ing the defendants' mark might be readily mistaken for the Florida water bearing the plaintiffs' mark.
By a majority of four to three the jury answered these questions in the affirmative, and his Lordship entered judgment for the plaintiffs
IN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR MR. W. REES DAVIES, K.C. (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE).
THE INDIAN POLICE MURDER. Mak Tin Fuk was indicted on the charge of murdering two Indian police at Lamchun Gap, New Territory, on August 20th.
Prisoner pleaded not guilty, and the follow- ing jury was empanelled:- Messrs. P. C. Potts, Mr. Manuk, W. E. Molson, W. King, A. G. Coppin, G. M. Smith and G. S. Cruickshank,
The Hon. Mr. F. A. Hazeland, Acting Attorney-General, instructed by Mr. F. B. L. Bowley, Crown Solicitor, prosecuted, and Mr. J. W. Orr, instructed by Mr. A. Jackson (of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master), represented the defendant.
.
The Attorney-General informed the Court and jury that the prisoner was charged with murdering two members of the Indian police force at Lamchun Gap on August 20th. The motive of the crime was
suggested by the Crown to be robbery, because the two Indian police were escorting certain Crown rent which was being taken to Taipo. In the new Territory Crown rent was collected during the months of July and August each year, and was payable at the police station in the district where it was due. The sergeant in charge of each district was responsible for its collection, and he despatched Crown rent every three or four days to the principal col- lector at Taipo. Lamchun Gap was a solit- ary place five miles distant from any police station. On the morning of August 20th, Sergeant Moore, who is in charge of the Autau Police Station, despatched three days' rent to Taipo. The money, which was done up in three packages, was placed in two open baskets and carried by a Chinese coolie on a bamboo pole. No suspicion attached to the coolie. The escort consisted of two Indians properly dressed and armed with loaded revolvers. The weather being very hot, each of the policemen carried an umbrella. It appeared that after leaving the station the men took off their tunics and put them in the baskets. Subsequently they also removed their turbans, and being Mahommedans their hair was cut short, so that they had no protection for their heads. The last part of the road up the Gap was very steep, so the police went ahead of the coolie, the Sergeant leading. When in the Gap the police saw a number of Chinese, who greeted them with, "Good morning friend," in Chinese. The police returned the greeting and passed on. Then the Chinese sprang upon them from behind, striking them on their heads with mattocks and choppers, The carrying coolie, on seeing the attack, dropped the baskets and fled down the hillside. He reported the occurrence at the Autau police station, and Sergeant Moore gathering some police together hurried to the Gap. An Indian constable from Taipo gave the wounded constable some water, which slightly revived him, and he then made a state ment. He said he was walking behind the
445
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT. sergeant when he saw several Chinese descendentered into a contract. The defendants con ing the Gap from the direction of Taipo. One tended that the four cases supplied were not of the Chinese greeted them with "Cho San, according to sample, but were similar to a panyau."
quantity of singlets they had obtained some years ago.
Mr. Orr-Are you putting this in as a dying declaration ?
The Attorney-General-Yes. Mr. Orr-I submit it cannot be put in in that
way.
The Attorney-General-Then I will not open with it.
Proceeding, the Attorney-General said that for a long time no trace of the murderers could be found, but on September 16th Sergeant Moore, with a small force, surrounded a village near Taipo and four arrests were made. An- other prisoner would be charged separately in connection with this murder and another | suspected murderer had been arrested in Chinese territory.
Evidence was called, and the hearing adjourned.
Saturday November 20th.
When evidence had concluded Counsel ad- dressed, the jury and his Lordship directed them.
The jury unanimously returned a verdict of guilty, and his Lordship, wearing the black cap, sentenced the prisoner to death.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR MR. H. H. J. GOMPERTZ (PUISNE JUDGE),
A DISPUTED GUARANTEE.
Wong Hop and another proceeded against Ng Ha to recover $78.35, being balance due from the Chung Hing Shipping Co. for coal supplied, payment of which was guaranteed by the defendant under a guarantee dated January 22nd, 1908.
Mr. Leo d'Almada e Castro (of Messrs. Goldring, Barlow and Morrell) appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Hinds (of Messrs. Brutton and Hett) represented the defendant.
Mr. Almada stated that the plaintiffs were partners in a firm called the Hop Fat, of 46. Connaught Road Central, and the defendant, who resided at No 5, Hollywood Road, was the wife of one Lai Chi Chun. In the course of plaintiffs' dealings with the Chung Hing Co., in which the defendant's husband was a partner, the plaintiffs supplied the Chung Hing Co. | with certain coal for their shipping department, and when a balance of $300 odd became due the Chung Hing Co. asked the plaintiff firm to supply them with certain other coal
T
His Lordship-Does the case turn on the guarantee?
vvvvv
Mr. Almada Yes. The defendant signed a guarantee note which is not properly stamped, and I would ask your Lordship to direct that it be stamped.
His Lordship-You can have it stamped and pay the penalty.
Mr. Almada-I will undertake to do that. I understand the defence is that the defendant did not sign this note.
Plaintiff then testified to seeing the defendant sign the guarantee.
Mr. Hinds submitted that there was nothing for him to cross-examine about. This guarantee, if it was signed by the defendant, was signed without any consideration at all.
His Lordship-As far as this witness goes. Mr. Hinds--I understand my friend is not calling other witnesses.
Mr. Almada-I am. The hearing was adjourned.
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.
The Italian Far Eastern Trading Co. brought action against Hing Kee, otherwise known as the Lai Wo Hing Kee firm, to recover -237.53 for damages suffered by reason of the defendants refusing or neglecting to accept delivery of four, cases of singlets in accordance with an agreement dated February 20th.
Mr. Hinds (of Messrs. Brutton and Hett) appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. M. Reader Harris (of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist) re- presented the defendant.
Mr. Hinds informed the Court that it was part of the plaintiffs' business to supply singlets to Chinese merchants, and a sample was supplied the defendants, who subsequently
After hearing the evidence his Lordship entered judgment for the plaintiffs
Friday, November 19th.
· A CASE OF INVOLVED ACCOUNTS.
His Lordship delivered his decision in the case in which Ñg Tsan, trading as Ng Tsan Kee, brought action against the Tung Tai Tseung Kee to recover. $221.20 for work done and material supplied, and there was counter-claim for $251.80.
8
Mr. Otto Kong Sing represented the plaintiff, and Mr. M. Reader Harris (of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist) appeared for the defence.
His Lordship stated that after going through the accounts and considering the evidence in the case it seemed to him quite clear that the plaintiff had done a great deal more work than he was credited with having done. Accepting the defendants' accounts and crediting the plaintiff with a balance of $450, the result was that there was still a net balance in favour of the plaintiffs of $221.20, and he would enter judgment for the plaintiff for that amount.
MONEY LENDING-CASES.
In the first case mentioned a clerk in the Post Office named Lau Hin was proceeded against by Ghurbak Singh (who was represented by Mr. J. H. Gardiner) to recover $372; and the same clerk was the defendant in another action in which Moola Singh sued him for $58. Mr. Hinds (of Messrs. Brutton and Hett) represented the second plaintiff.
Defendant admitted both claims, and asked to be allowed to pay in instalments of $20 a month. His salary was $80 a month.
•
His Lordship could not understand who moneylenders should advance money to a person in the defendant's position.
Mr. Gardiner-E don't. see why your Lordship should object to olerk in the Post Office being lent money.
His Lordship te is in a humble position, and it should be part of the public policy to discourage moneylenders lending money to such persons.
Mr. Hind then mentioned his claim. His Lordship (to defendant)-Are you mar- ried ?—Yes.
How many children have you ?—Two. Are you supporting any parent P-No. What rent do you pay P-$21.
If you pay $20 on the first claim monthly, can you pay $10 on the second ?—Yes.
Mr. Gardiner did not approve of this arrangement.
His Lordship-I don't think your client should have lent him so much. It was a very hazardous speculation.
Mr. Hinds-And in all probability the defendant borrowed money from my client to pay interest to Mr. Gardiner's client.
His Lordship-Very likely.
The defendant was ordered to pay $20 monthly on the first claim and $10 on the second the first instalments to be paid on December 1st.
In the next case Summa Singh sought to recover $50, money lent to two Chinese postmen.
Mr. Gardiner represented the plaintiff, and the defendants admitted the claim, but stated that they borrowed $25 only and had had to sign for $50. They had been paying interest. every month.
His Lordship-How much?
First defendant-Ten cents a dollar per month..
His Lordship-How long has it been going: on ?
F
Mr. Gardiner-Since July.
In reply to the Court the defendants stated that they each received $10 a month wages.
His Lordship ordered the defendants to repay". in instalments of $2.50 each per month.
Gunda Singh brought action against M. dos Santos and her son to recover $40, the plaintiff being represented by Mr. J. H, Gardiner.