888
339
( 26 )
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, was £9 odd which had been demanded. I left the Chinaman with the Shroff, and did not see the payment made or receipt given. 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.
I always pay the ground rent on Chun Atsoo's lots: 204, 381, 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 the lot 552, for which 4d. was paid by me on account her property; it was managed by my wife for her; the lots stood in my name for safety only. She has let them auction at the sale of the Western Market property in November last, and referred to by Dr Bridges. I was at the auction. When this lot 552 was put up, a lad brought me a verbal message from Atuk, who occupied shop 56 in the market, which had previously been sold, desiring me to purchase this lot for him to the limit of $1,400. Dr Bridges was standing close to me at the time. I told him I had just got a commission to purchase one of the shops. I did buy it at $1,410. After I had told Atuk 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 person for $1,500—he did not at that time say to whom. The purchase-money had been paid.
The lot 4d. was an unpaid balance of ground rent to 24th December last. At the time I paid the 4d. I did not know the lease had not been made out.
I wish 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 pay 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 declaration 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.
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.
With reference to charge 5: I never speculated in brothel licenses. I consider it a malicious charge, to say the least of it.
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 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.
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 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 agreed to pay $470, of which she had paid $400 from part of the funds in her hands, the property of her sister. These funds are the accumulation of the rents paid to her by Szekai, on account of her sister Chun Atsoo. She afterwards discovered that this house was only a section of a lot, and she said she had requested Szekai to see if the person who had the other section would sell it, as she would prefer buying both. She said she would allow Szekai to sell the house to any other person by paying her back the $400. She said she considered Szekai answerable to her for the $400. When I wrote the letter of the 10th or 11th May, and up to the time that she told me what she had done, I had no idea of it. I positively state, that this purchase was not to be paid for by her out of any moneys belonging to me in her hands, and that I have no possible interest in the purchase, as I am not, unfortunately, possessed of so much money.
( 27 )
With reference to what Mr May stated as to the reconstruction of the house on lot 206, I would state that this has never been done, that the houses stand now as they were originally built, and that there is a passage running between the front and the back houses on lot 206, whereby they are entirely separated from each other. The roofs even do not join.
With reference to charge 15: I deny that also, I purchased 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 them 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 16: Mr 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 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 came to live with me. 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 performed, my wife came to live with me in the back part of a house which I had provided for her, and which was distinct from the remainder of the house, and had a separate entrance. My first child was born on the 3d December, 1844, and died ten days afterwards; the next was born on the 31st October, 1846. I made at the time of their births entries of the dates in a prayer book which I now produce.
In the statement which Mr Inglis made as to his having seen my wife in a brothel in 1844, I say he must have been mistaken, as she was my wife, and living with me as such during the whole of that year in the house I had provided for her, which was in Choong Wan—and not in Taipingshan. In the middle of 1844, the houses in Choong Wan were pulled down, and the inmates removed to Taipingshan. I then removed Mrs Caldwell to the upper story of a shop in the Lower Bazar—no part of the house was used as a brothel. About the end of the year, we removed to Taipingshan, 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 language 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 17: I deny this charge altogether. 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 Hongkong. 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, particularly when my sister was here on a two years' visit from Singapore. 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 me.
I beg now to hand in a letter (P) from Siemssen & Co. under date 25th of April, 1857, to Dr Bridges, agreeing to accept the proposal which had been made by him on behalf of me for the benefit of my creditors. In this letter there is an error in the valuation put on the landed property, including as it does the value of the three lots which were 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 agreement to accept this arrangement by all the European creditors, 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 this moment able to find it.
Adjourned till 12 o'clock on Wednesday, 16th June.