Me ty thales interten
( 27 )
465
( 26 )
pay the ground rent for Chun Atsoo's lots, if you will give me the money I will pay it for you." He gave me
then a $50 note, and I paid the ground rent.
pay
given.
I left the Chinaman
odd which had been demanded. with the Shroff, and did not see the payment made or receipt I have never at any period paid any ground rent on account of this lot, and have never been consulted about nor taken any part in, the payment of this rent on any previous occasion.
Lum Ateen did live, and I think does now, with Assow the road overseer.
He never lived on the water. I have known the man for many years; his family is wealthy and he himself I should think is worth from $10,000 to $12,000.
I always pay the ground rent on Chun Atsoo's lots: 204, 331, 382. Those three lots stood in my name in the Land Office before the 6th May 1857. I had explained to Dr Bridges, who had kindly undertaken the arrangement of my affairs, and also particularly to Siemssen & Co., without whose consent I could do nothing, that these lots though standing in my name were really the property of my wife's sister Chun Atsoo, and that they had been purchased with her money. I had not the management of her property; it.
The lot 552, for which 4d. was paid by me on account was managed by my wife for her; the lots stood in my name of -, was in respect of the lot purchased by me at for safety only. She has let them out to Szekai, and he pays auction at the sale of the Western Market property in her $75 a-month. I have never received any of the rents of November last, and referred to by Dr Bridges. I was at the this property myself, nor have I any account of them I wish auction. When this lot 552 was put up, a lad brought me to explain that by the admission in page 14 of the evidence, I did not mean that I personally received these rents, but that my wife did. I these ground rents at the request of my wife, who gives me the money for that purpose. The payments of $75 a-month which have been received by Mrs Caldwell are not carried into my general family account, but to an entirely distinct and separate account which she keeps with her sister. I was in June, 1857, advised to make a leclaration or affidavit to the effect, that this property, though registered in my name, was the property of Chun Atsoo, and had been purchased by me for her with money placed in my hands for that purpose. I prepared an affidavit to that effect, and went to Mr May for the purpose of deposing to it before him. He thought it could not be done, and took the opinion of the Chief Magistrate, who, Mr May told me, was of the same opinion. I was consequently never sworn. On the 6th May 1857, I did transfer these lots to the name of Chun Atsoo, for the nominal consideration of $3. The payment I made on the 18th February, which was stated in the receipt to be on account of Mr Woods, was in respect of the four lots 206, 263,264, and 551, purchased by Lum Ateen of Mr Woods. The receipt was in that form, because the property still stood in the name of Mr Woods.
a verbal message from Atuk, who occupied shop 56 in the market, which had previously been sold, desiring me to pur-- chase this lot for him to the limit of $1,400. Dr Bridges was standing close to me at the time. I had just got a commission to purchase one of the shops. I told him that
I did buy it at $1,410. After I had told Atuk that he was the purchaser, he told me he could not raise the whole of the purchase-money, but had made over the lot to another per- son for $1,500-he did not at that time say to whom. The purchase-money had been paid. The 4d. was an unpaid balance of ground rent to 24th December last. I paid the 4d. I did not know the name of the second purchaser, or the then owner, for the lease had not been made out.
At the time
With reference to charge 5: I never speculated in brothels or in brothel licenses. I consider it a malicious charge, to say the least of it. The lot I wished to purchase through Mr Turner of Mr Anstey was for Lum Ateen. If this lot had been purchased hy Lum Ateen no houses could have been erected as licensed brothels on it, for it faces and abuts on the Queen's Road, and the Brothels' Ordinance expressly prohibits keeping a brothel even within the brothel districts -if it face the Queen's Road.
With reference to charge 16: I have never purchased any land in this colony either on my own account, or as agent, or on account of any other person, since December last, when I became licenser of brothels.
On the 10th or 11th
With reference to the payment on the 5th March on account of Sin On Wo, I should state that I did not make that payment at all. On the afternoon of the 4th a Sunon man, whose name I do not know, came to me at my office, and brought me a receipt for ground rent on a lot in the name of Sin On Wo for £8 and odd for the half-year and he said that he had been to the Land Office, and that they wanted $90 from him, more than double what he had paid before. He came to me as Protector of Chinese, as hundreds of people do every day for advice. I told him if he would come next day, I would see about it. He came the next day-the 5th, and I showed the receipt to Mr Carvalho, and asked for an explanation. He told me that the increase was on account of an encroachment,―tion of the rents paid to her by Szekai, on account of her some ground which he had built upon. I explained sister Chun Atsoo. She afterwards discovered that this this to the man, but found that instead of $90, it was £9 house was only a section of a lot, and she said she had request
of last month, I had to write an official letter to the Acting Colonial Secretary, with reference to a charge made against me of owning land in this colony. I mentioned this after I went home to Mrs Caldwell, and that I had positively denied the charge. She then said that she had bargained for a house in Taipingshan, as she had a large sum in her hands belonging to her sister. She said she had agreed to pay $470, of which she had paid $400 from part of the funds in her bands, the property of her sister. These funds are the accumula-
ed Szekai to see if the person who had the other section fed, my wife came to live with me in the back part of a house would sell it, as she would prefer buying both. She would which I had provided for her, and which was distinct from allow Szekai to sell the house to any other person by paying the remainder of the house, and had a separate entrance. her back the $400. She said she considered Szekai answer- My first child was born on the 3d December, 1844, and died able to her for the $400. When I wrote the letter of the ten days afterwards; the next was born on the 31st October, 10th or 11th May, and up to the time that she told me 1846. I made at the time of their births entries of the dates what she had done, I had no idea of it. I positively state, in a prayer book which I now produce. In the statement that this purchase was not to be paid for by her out of any which Mr Inglis made as to his having seen my wife in a moneys belonging to me in her hands, and that I have no brothel in 1844, I say he must have been mistaken, as she possible interest in the purchase, as I am not, unfortunately, was my wife, and living with me as such, during the possessed of so much money. With reference to what Mr whole of that year, in the house I had provided for May stated as to the reconstruction of the house on lot 206, her, which was in Choong Wan--and not in Taipingshan. I would state that this has never been done, that the houses In the middle of 1844, the houses in Choong Wan were stand now as they were originally built, and that there is a pulled down, and the inmates removed to Taipingshan. I passage running between the front and the back houses on then removed Mrs Caldwell to the upper story of a shop in lot 206, whereby they are entirely separated from each other. the Lower Bazaar-no part of the house was used as a
10% h The roofs even do not join.
brothel. About the end of the year, we removed to Tai- pingshan, and remained about two months in a house built in lieu of the one we had first inhabited. In the beginning. of 1845, I rented the whole of the upper story of a house in Queen's Road. I am desirous of denying in as strong lan- guage as I can use, that my wife was a Chinese girl from a brothel, or that she ever lived in a brothel at all.”
With reference to charge 15: I deny that also. I pur chased at auction lot 206, with three dilapidated houses on it, for $270. These houses had been brothels in the flourishing time of Taipingshan, but were not so when I purchased then in 1854. With reference to all other houses which I have ever owned in this colony, none of them were brothels when I purchased them; none of the houses I have ever owned! in this colony were brothels during the time they remained in my possession, nor when I sold them to different persons. With reference to those which were sold to Mr Woods, I know that they were not brothels, as I was at the auction, and went into all the houses.
With reference to charge 17: I deny this charge alto- gether. I have received no rents on any lot since the 14th of December last.
No two persons could have been more intimate than myself and Mr May from the time his wife left Hong- kong. From 1851 to 1857, I am certain that Mr May was a casual visitor without invitation at our house, at least six times a month, instead of six times altogether, particular- ly when my sister was here on a two years' visit from Singa- pore. My sister played on the piano, and he came in almost every evening. I never left him out on the occasion of our giving parties to our friends, and he came on nearly every occasion.
I can positively state that he was never absent one year on Christmas day, but always dined with
With reference to charge 16: Mrs Caldwell has one sister whose name is Chun Atsoo, and whose proper residence is in Macao. She has not been in this colony since 1851. She is married to a Fuhkien merchant. She has also a daughter -with whom she is now staying. She has only been in this colony twice on a visit, and when she came resided in our house. She never kept a brothel. Mrs Caldwell has no other sister by blood or usage besides Chun Atsoo, I deny charge 16 altogether. I have known a woman named Shap-me.
does not imply the slightest relationship or connection between the children of such sisters according to the Chi-
nese usage.
lok as long as I have known my wife. Shaplok's mother and I beg now to hand in a letter (P) from Siemssen & Co. under Mrs Caldwell's mother were sworn sisters, Sworn sisters are date 25th of April, 1857, to Dr Bridges, agreeing to accept bound to support and protect each other, and to perform the proposal which had been made by him on behalf of the funeral rites to each other as sisters. The custom me for the benefit of my creditors. In this letter there is an error in the valuation put on the landed property, in- cluding as it does the value of the three lots which were in fact the property of Chun Atsoo. This error was subsequently pointed out to Siemssen & Co., who desired me to draw up the affidavit I have before mentioned, in order that the creditors should be satisfied. To this letter is also appended an agree- ment to accept this arrangement by all the European credi- tors, except Lane, Crawford & Co., whose claim was only $48. A translation of this letter was made by me at Siemssen & Co.'s request, and signed by all the Chinese creditors, but I am not at this moment able to find it.
I was first married privately to my wife according to Chinese usage in November 1843-all the ceremonies used by Chinese on such occasions were then performed by my wife. On no other condition would her mother consent to let her live with me.
I was then living in the Magistracy compound. She was not living in a brothel at the time she I could not obtain admission into the house in which she was then living with her mother because it was a family house. The arrangement was made by a third party. After this Chinese marriage had been perform-
came to live with me.
Adjourned till 12 o'clock on Wednesday, 16th June.
A
: