The facts are simple:
14
When the letter of 30th January was written, the only information which had been given by Mok Kun was as to Leung Lai Sang: and Mr. Schluter adds that Mok Kan at that date can only have mentioned Leung Lai Sang, because if there had been more than one owner mentioned by Mok Krn it should have been put in the letter." And the defendants had no other source of information than Mok Kun. Also, when the business first began Mok Kun was consulted as to the standing of the Cheong Loong, and it is clear that he did not at that time mention the names of the Cantonese people as being partners.
By the 13th February the amount of information had not increased, for Canton is still requesting Hongkong to let them know if Leung Lai Sang is really partner in the sugar shop, as an indispensable piece of information preparatory to seizing his silk store: the answer to this, on the 15th February, being that Mok Kuu had no written proof that Leung Lai Sang was a partner: but private enquiries at the Consulate are suggested as to whether it would not be possible to have Leung Lai Sang arrested if he would not settle the matter amicably. "It is really a pity," the letter of this date concludes, "that we cannot give you any further information, but we hope to be able to do so to-morrow."
On the 14th February Mok Kun is trying to get written proof by writing to Leung Lai Sang in the hopes of getting a reply. Yet it is to be noted that the letter (Exhibit 2) was then in Mok Kun's hands, and he had, as he says, already obtained $5,000 security from Leung Lai Sang.
On 15th February, what I can only call a truly marvellous reply, came from Canton to longkong. The Consulate is closed, but "he got privately the advice to write to the Consulate and request the same to arrest Leung Lai Sang as he is partner of the Cheong Loong shop and therefore owes us money. Should he really not be u partner this would have to be enquired into.” It is to be noted in their favour that the Canton branch do not propose to act on this advice: but add the sage counsel that it will be no use simply to presume that the man is a partner. There is at this point a hiatus in the copies of correspondence produced.
A draft letter was sent from Canton to Hongkong for approval before sending it to the Consul, the enclosure was not produced, but except for certain variations in the figures I must assume that it was in fact the letter of the 21st February to the German Consul written by the Canton branch giving the names of the 3 men as partners: the statement is given on information from Hongkong, so that the brauch here must have had information about the 18th, which they had not got on 15th. I look in vain for the explanation. But the state of uncertainty in which Hongkong was throughout is shewn by the letter of 19th March, in which the immediate release of the silk store is requested. It contains this passage: "We shall make further enquiries as to what extent the brother of the proprietor of the sugar shop has an interest in it: and then (on 19th March) reasons are given which are said to justify the assumption of a partnership as against him." There is a great deal of confusion about this; who the brother is I am not quite clear: it is possible that it is Leung Lai Nam. But the letter by itself seems to me to demonstrate as clearly as possible the absence of reasonable and probable cause for the action taken on 21st February. In this connexion I must also refer to the very definite state- ment made by Mr. Schluter at the end of his cross-examina- tion after a reference to the correspondence, ending 27th March: "I knew as much as any one in the Hongkong office. I was instructing the Canton office, the compradore had never told me about the 3 men and the two dinner parties. I have no recollection of 3 men having been mentioned by the compradore, he certainly mentioned one: he might have said Cantonese, but I cannot remember."
I must note here the extreme unwillinguess of the defen- dants to produce their correspondence, and that the only European witness put by thein in the box was Mr. Schluter,
417
Page 420Page 421