Extract from "Hong Kong Daily Press" dated 30th March,1928.
66
MR. LEE HYSAN CROSS-EXAMINED.
BUSINESS METHODS
CRITICISED.
JUDGMENT RESERVED.
The libel action against Mr. Lee Hysan, in which the plaintiff is Mr. Pedro Jose Lobo, the Macao Government official in charge of the production and control of opium in the Portuguese Colony. was continued in the Supreme Court yesterday before the Chief Justice (Sir Henry Gollan).
The defendant was cross-examined at great length by Mr. C. G. Alabaster, K.C. who with Mr. Sheldon appears for the plaintiff.
Mr. Lee Hysan said, in answer to Mr. Alabaster that the first time he saw a share receipt of the Yau Sing Company was when he got Fung's letter. The receipt said nothing about the opium monopoly.
Witness agreed that he got some information from the compradore of the Mercantile Bank.
Coming to the Yue Sing Company witness said that the sole pro- prietor was Mr. Lee Yue Sing, his nephew, the son. of his eldest brother. He denied that there was any Yue Sing Company in which there were shareholders and with which he, witness was connected.
Mr. Alabaster produced a docu- ment and asked witness if it were share certificate. Mr. Lee Hysan described it as a receipt for money invested under conditions.
Mr. Alabaster said the document was numbered 3,021 and that the capital of $3,000,000 was mentioned. The managing directors were named as Mr. Lee Hysan and another while Fung and Butt were given as managers.
Mr. Alabaster: Do you say that the Yue Sing Company is a com- pany carrying on business under the sole proprietorship of your nephew?—Yes. If you want to go further look up the company's con- ditions.
Was Mr. Lee Kin Fu a share-
holder?-No.
Has he taken proceedings against you in bankruptcy to get that com- pany wound up?-Ex parte.
After a protest by Mr. Eldon Potter, K.C., for the defendant that the questions were irrelevant Mr. Alabaster said that he was suggesting that the company was a Jekyll and Hyde affair and pro- ceedings were initiated to get the company wound up.
Mr. Alabaster: The Macao courts have found that there was a com- pany and ordered it to be wound up-We only recognised money in- vested to bring a profit. There were no shareholders.
Mr. Lee Hysan agreed that if it had been a company it would have been illegal. He did not call him- self managing director but general manager.
Why do you call the document a share certificate ?-Because we have to share the profit according to the capital of $3,000,000. About two thirds of the capital is owned by my family and under my control.
About eight lakhs of the $3,000,000 were his own, about a million was owned by his family and under his control and the rest was from friends.
The opium farm was previously run by a firm in his brother's name. Later it was in witness's name. Lee Yue Sing knew little about the matter.
Mr. Lee Hysan agreed that before Macao adopted the Geneva Conven- tion his company, the Yue Sing Company, had had the right of pre- paring and retaining opium in Macao and the right to import and re-export.
Mr. Alabaster: You had stocks of opium which you had either pre- pared or re-exported?—Yes.
You sold those stocks to the Government ?—Yes.
Under the Convention they could not export them raw or prepared? -They could get a certificate from the country of origin.
The only thing the Government could do was to prepare the opium and use it for local consumption?- I don't agree. They could re-export it to the country from which it
came.
But article 6 of the Convention says they can't do that?-They can return it to the country of origin.
You think the Government bought this opium from you for the purpose of sending it back?
His Lordship: He has not said that.
When the Yau Shing Company was started Fung asked witness if it was advisable to invest in it. Later witness wrote to Fung asking him to get various particulars regard- ing the company. He wrote because he wanted an answer in writing.