December 20, 1909.]
Friday, December 17th.
CLAIM FOR COAL SUPPLIED.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
.
533
Mr. Harris, in opening, informed the Court bribes and making extra work for the Dock Co. and jury that the action, was brought for On August 8th witness saw the manager on damages by slander which he would prove. had board, and the latter promised to employ him His Lordship delivered his decision in the led to the dismissal of the plaintiff from his in a new ship they were building. When that case in which Wong Hop and another sued Ng
employment. The plaintiff was the chief vessel was built, however, a new man was Yuen Ha to recover $780.35 for coal supplied belonging to the Sze Yap Steamship Co. He he had never had any complaints made against engineer of the 8.5. Shun Lee, a ship. appointed. During his service in the Company under a guarantee.
Mr. Len d'Almada e Castro (of Messrs. Gold-joined that Company on 29th December, him. He was often consulted by the Company, ring, Barlow and Morrell) appeared for the 1905, as chief engineer, and remained until and asked to do work beyond that of a chief plaintiffs, and Mr. Hinds (of Messrs. Brutton July 17th of this year, a period of about four engineer. and Hett) represented the defendant.
years. The defendant, in 1907, was appointed in cross-examination plaintiff said he held a His Lordship said he had come to the conclu- master of the same ship. The speaker in second engineer's certificate, and had been an sion on the facts that he must accept the tended to prove by witness that ever since engineer for the last twenty years. He had defence and the various points of law raised. the middle of 1908 the plaintiff and de- never tried for his chief's ticket, but thought He would therefore give judgment and costs
fendant had been on bad "terms, and the he could have mausged to get it if he had. His for the defendant, as he thought the plaintiffs language to the plaintiff on numerous occasions. get a shore billet. Before joining the Shun Lee latter had used insulting and objectionable reason for not trying was because he wished to This was, presumably, with the purpose of he had served in vessels belonging to the N. Y. K., the China Merchants, the Douglas Steamship Company and the Chinese Steamship Company. He had been in the Tai On for one trip only. He considered it was the duty of an engineer to look after the boilers and attend to his own work.
had not made out their case.
•
SECURITY FOR COSTS SOUGHT.
Edward Hotel, to recover $878,98, said to be due for money lent and services rendered.
Mr. Leo d'Almada o Castro appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. R. F. C. Master (ofessrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master) represented the defendant
Mr. Master applied for security for costs. The plaintiff was the Scotch comedian in a cinematograph, and the defendant was employed in the King Edward Hotel.
His Lordship Then he is probably on monthly wages.
Mr. Master-No, he has got a lease of the bar
for two years.
Mr. Almada objected. His client was engag- ed for two mouths at the cinema ograph, and would not finish until January 15th.
Mr. Master contended that as the plaintiff was only a temporary resident, his Lordship should order security.
master or mate? No, and I never did.
You have no right to interfere with the
What are the duties of a chief engineer with regard to repairs P-I always make out a list of necessary repairs and give it to the general manager.
f
Have you ever had any complaints from the general manager or directors with regard to repairs carried out by you and not submitted to them ?- Never.
During the time you were in the Shun Lee whom were the repairs done by P-The Dock Co. used to do some, but they were mostly carried out by a Chinese firm. I went wherever I was told by the general manager.
Do you remember going into the Sze Yap Co's. office about the end of May or the beginn ing of June ? Yes.
The case was mentioned in which W. Loch-getting the plaintiff to leave the employment rane, comedian at the Victoria Cinematograph, of his own free will. Plaintiff, however, was not sued L. M. Levy, in the employ of the King to be bullied out of his employment in such a manner On July 11th a serious quarrel took place over a trifling matter, in which the defendant was very threatening and insulting to the plain coal which was ordered by the defendant. The tiff. The quarrel arose over the matter of some
typhoon signals were up at the time, and three tons of coal went on board. Plaintiff informed the master of this, and the defendant became very abusive and said that 20 tons had gone on board. Subsequently the manager and secretary of the Company went on board, and plaintiff complained to them, with the result that 40 tons the captain of this, and the latter again of coal were sent on board. Plaintiff notified
became very abusive and threatening. Dur- ing the whole trip to Kongmoon on July 11th, when Mr. Jim Kai was on board, and the return trip on the 6th, plaintiff saw nothing of the defendant. On the morning after the return, however, the defendant arrived on board with an open letter addressed to the plaintiff in which it was stated that the Company did not wish to retain him any longer as an engineer, and that they had made arrangements to fill his place. The defendant read the latter in the presence of the chief officer, and then hand- ed it to Loureiro. After three and a half years' service the plaintiff was much surprised to get a letter dismissing him with 24 hours', notice. Do you remember advising the Sze Yap Co. On inquiring the reason of this, Mr Jim Kai to put a new windlass in the ship?I did, the informed him that he had been told by Captain old one was continually breaking down. Cameron that the plaintiff had been accepting
Have you always been on good terms with bribes from the Dock Co., making unnecessary Jim Kai?-Yes, but he has got a
'down on work on the ship. The plaintiff would me." deny this, and he (Mr. Harris) asked It takes two to make a quarrel. Have you the jury to believe that it was due been on good terms with him of late-Yes, I to such statements that the plaintiff was dis- have had no quarrels with him, missed, and had been unable to obtain employ- W. H. W. Loureiro proceeded against J. C,ment since. he words about bribes meant Cameron to recover damages not exceeding presumably that the plaintiff had been putting $1,000 for slander. The case came on before money into his own pocket in order to defraud the Paisne Judge, and a jury composed of the Company. It was not necessary to prove Messrs. P. R. Wolfe (foreman), A. Hamilton and J. H. Mead,
His Lordship--He is earning his living here, apparently.
Mr. Master-But he has no house here, and no goods.
His Lordship Is the plaintiff ordinarily a resident outside the jurisdiction ?
Mr. Master-Certainly, and he has only a temporary engagement here, therefore there is nothing to keep him.
Mr. Almada His engagement with the cine. matograph does not conclude until January
15th.
Mr. Master-I don't admit he will be there as long as that.
His Lordship said he did not see his way to make an order at present, but would consider the matter in Chambers this morhing.
ALLEGED SLANDER.
Mr. M. Reader Harris (of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist) represented the plaintiff, and Mr. R. F. C. Master (of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master) appeared for the defendant.
Mr. Master, at the outset took a preliminary objection with regard to the empanelling of the jury. It was laid down in the Jury Ordinance. that wherever it was necessary to summon a jury in Summary Jurisdiction the number drawn from should be six. In this case eighteen jurors were summoned, and that, he submitted, invalidated the whole panel.
His Lordship said he had been informed that under a misapprehension, eighteen names had been drawn. This was the number required in Original Jurisdiction. The jurors present were
the first six drawn,
a
Mr. Master pointed out that a verdict from jury improperly empanelled might not be upheld. His Lordship-Who would pay the costs of an adjournment?
Mr. Harris-My friend. Mr. Master--I submit not. His Lordship-This would simply increase the costs to the losing party.
Mr. Master-I suggest my friend should pay. His Lordship-It is not Mr. Harris' fault. Mr. Master-Nor mine. I am not taking this objection to delay the case, but I thought it was a matter that ought to be mentioned.
His Lordship-I shall rule there is one panel. and go on.
any malice on the part of the defendant, but he asked the jury to believe, after hearing the evidence, that the defendant was actuated by most malicious motives. Plaintiff was drawing a salary of $220, and since his discharge had been out of work for four or five months. In the event of the case being proved, the speaker therefore asked for substantial damages.
And picking up an envelope from the table and removing the contents? No.
Do you remember bringing your fist down on the table?--I did not.
fools,
Do you remember saying "D why was not an estimate like this sent to me?
I did not say anything of the sort.
"1
Have you ever assaulted him ?-Never. Never laid your hands on him, pushed him, hustled him or abused him ?-No.
Did you say that on the way up to Kongmoon / on July 11th you never saw the defendant P—— I never spoke to him. I thought his company was not good enough for me, as he threatened me with a Malacca cane and said he'd have my life.
Why didn't you take him to the Magistracy for using threats P-I thought it better to get a transfer to the Tak Hing and avoid all this
trouble.
In re-examination, plaintiff said he was not The latter on the best terms with Jim Kai. owed him some money, and declined to give evidence in this case so that he had to subpoena
him.
On
Plaintiff stated that he was. lately chief engineer on the Shun Lee, and was now out of employment. When he first knew the defend- ant, about ten years ago, he was second mate of the Fatshan. Defendant joined the Shun Lee as master on the recommendation of witness, and
Jim Kai, manager, of the Sze Yap Steam- they were good friends till the end of ship Co., was than called, and said he dismissed August, 1908. Defendant then had a row with the plaintiff because the latter had had the ship Captain Cooper, who was mate of the vessel, repaired without consulting him. Then, when and when witness spoke to him about it the he went on board and asked for details of the defendant called him abusive names. They had repairs the plaintiff would not allow him to another quarrel on July this year over coal. speak and drove him out of his room. The ship was short and he asked for 20 tons making inquiries, he found further that the because the typhoon signals were up. On receiy engineer had got something like commission ing three tons witness complained to the manager from the Dock Co. Defendant and plaintiff that it was not sufficient. Subsequently 40 tons were sometimes on good terms, and sometimes were placed on board, and when witness told they were not. When witness returned from the defendant the latter abused him. On the Kongmoon his directors asked him to dismiss same day, July 11th, witness told the manager Loureiro. Defendant did not tell him that that it would be better to transfer him to the plaintiff had been accepting bribes from the Tak Hing to save further quarrels, and Mr. Dock Co., and he could not remember having Jim Kai said he would. On the morning of an interview, with Captain Cooper on August the 7th witness received a letter informing him 8th. He had a plan drawn by the plaintiff, that his services were
also a letter from the latter's solicitor demand- no longer required. Later he called on the manager and ing payment for it. learned the reason of his dismissal receiving did not use it. Why should we pay?
And you haven't paid for it. yet? Well, we