CO129-074 - Lieut. Governor Caine & Sir Robinson - 1859 [6-12] — Page 338

៩៩៩

334

( 16 )

doctor, and has attended Mr Caldwell's children. I do not know whether Mr Caldwell said he was going to pay ground rent on other lots when I went to him about Lum Ateen's lots. Lum Ateen returned from Macao about the end of the Chinese 1st moon. I waited until Lum Ateen's return, and paid over the rents to him. I do not collect rents I did not see the people that were here yesterday. I do not know any of the brothel -keepers.

for other

any

persons.

EDWARD KEATE STACE,-Called and examined.

I am a solicitor, and have acted in that capacity for Mr Caldwell on two occasions. The first transaction in which I was employed by Mr Caldwell, was one connected with the transfer of 8 lots of land. I acted for both vendor and purchaser. Mr Caldwell was the vendor. Mr Caldwell instructed me to register a transfer which was to be pre- pared in Chinese, of lots 179, 262, 241, B, 241 C, 242 B These he said had been sold to Lum Ateen, shopkeeper, but no transfer had been effected. The bill of sale in Chi- nese, with the usual transfer ticket, was to be produced to me, and I was to get those lots transferred to the name of Lum Ateen. The purchase-money was to be $2,150 for those lots. I was also instructed in the same manner to complete the transfer of 3 other lots, 250, 238 C, and 240, in the name of Chew Alai, widow; purchase-money $450. There were 8 lots altogether. At the same time were handed to me by Mr Caldwell, the original crown leases of inland lots 179, 242, B, 241 B, 262, 241 C, 238 C, and 250. I do not remember anything more being said about Chew Alai. I had no reason to suppose that Mr Caldwell was going to retain any direct or indirect interest in this proper- ty. It appeared to me an ordinary case of sale by a ven- dor to a purchaser. I was not employed in the matter of the purchase by Lum Ateen from Mr Woods of any lots of ground. I have not carried out the instructions I received relative to the transfer, because up to this time I have not received the Chinese Bill of Sale. All I want to complete the transfer is, the Bill of Sale, and the transfer ticket.

He was

Cross-examined, I believe I received these instructions at the end of last year, but I have no memorandum of the date by which I can assist my memory. Since then Mr Caldwell has never give me any instructions to delay the transfer, nor told me that he did not want it made. I have not seen Lum Ateen within the last fortnight. with me about six weeks ago about some other business, but he never mentioned this matter, or urged completion of the transfer. The business on which he came was to execute a bond as security for costs. The amount for which he was security was I think $500, and Turner & Hazeland wrote to me that they were satisfied Lum Ateen was a valid security. Mr Caldwell told me a short time ago, that Lum Ateen had returned with the Bill of Sale, but that owing to this inquiry, he would like to defer trans- ferring the lots, in order that he might remain here and so be at hand to give evidence.

Re-examined,─By saying that Mr Caldwell told me a short time ago of Lum Ateen's return, I mean within ten days. I can only explain the delay in the execution of the transfer by the absence of Lum Ateen. I do not know whether Dr Bridges was consulted with reference to the embarrassments of Mr Caldwell. I do not thing that I saw Lum Ateen at the time the instructions were given. I think I saw him a few days afterwards, when his attention was directed to me as the person employed to transfer the pro- perty. I do not recollect ever seeing Chew Alai. No person representing herself as the one concerned in this transfer ever came to my office. I never heard the name Chun Atsew; I was never employed by Mr Caldwell for either of them.

Lot 262, is the only one originally in Mr Caldwell's name. I require the mesne assignments of the other lots to enable me to make the title. I know nothing about the payment of the purchase-money for this property. I don't recollect that Mr Caldwell told me he would bring the Bill of Sale. Had Mr Caldwell applied to me at any time after I had received my instructions to give up these leases to him.

without the consent of Lun Ateen and Chew Alai 1 would not have complied, as I considered I held them for both parties until the transfer was complete. I never heard Mr Caldwell mention that he only held the property in his

name as trustee.

SIXTH DAY,

Tuesday, 8th June, 1358,-12 o'clock Noon.

Present. All the members except Mr Scarth. [Mr Caldwell's duplicate (N) of account current of estate with Siemssen & Co. produced.]

DANIEL RICHARD CALDWELL.-Called and exa- mined.

This account was forwarded in duplicate to me by Siems- sen & Co. The signature hereto is to the best of my knowledge in Mr Nissen's hand writing. [This accut shows on its credit side receipt by them of $2,200 proceeds and 264, and $300 proceeds of inland lot 262.] of the 10 houses, $2,193 proceeds of inland lots 206, 263,

Cross-examined,-The three sums of $2,200, $2,193, and $300 represent the proceeds of the whole of the proper- ty standing in my name in the Land Office books on the 9th June, 1857.

HENRY EDWARD HOEY,--Called and examined.

I am the owner of three lots in Taipingshan. There were five houses on one lot which have been blown down, and one house on each of the other two lots. five houses up at Public Auction sometime about April I put the

last. They were not sold. On that day or the day after Mr Caldwell came to me, and asked me what I wanted for,

f

them.

( 17 )

I told him a price. I think he said he was com- missioned to purchase them by aChinaman, but did not men tion his name. He did not buy them on that occasion. I met him on the upper road about a week after; he spoke to me again about them, and asked me if I would not take less than the sum I had mentioned; I said, "No." I have had no other conversation with him on the subject, and he has not purchased them. He never negotiated or made any offer for either of the other two lots. None of the houses on either of the lots were at that time brothels. but I have found that my man has since let one of the houses as a brothel. That house is not amongst the five for the purchase of which Mr Caldwell negotiated.

Cross-examined,These five houses are not in the vicinity of the brothels in Taipingshan; they are abreast of the new Taipingshan market.

ALEXANDER GRAND-PRE,-Called and examined. I am collector of Police Rates, and on the Pay-list of the Registrar General's office, and have been so since 1st January 1858. I am the occupant of lot 218. This lot still stands in the name of Mr Rienaecker, as owner, in the Land Office books. From the time Mr Rienaecker left this colony to the present, I have rented it from him at $100 a month. I have sublet a portion of it at one time to the Military authorities, and afterwards to the Police department; it is now sublet to two persons, one house to Victoriano Flores, who is a Boarding-house keeper, and the other four to a woman named Assoo. Three of these are licensed brothels. To the best of my know- ledge Mr Caldwell has no direct or indirect interest in this property; nor has Mr Caldwell, since Mr Ricuaecker left the colony, interfered with me in the management of it, I have never paid any of the rent to him, but always to Siemssen & Co., us agents for Mr Rienaecker, in accor- dance which orders left by him, and as his Attorneys under power. I have nothing to do with the Registration of Brothels; I am not assistant Registrar General. The branch of Mr Caldwell's duties is entirely distinct from mine.

Cross-examined, I let the houses to Assoo long before I believe her to be a the Brothel Ordinance was passed. notorious brothel-keeper. She has been I think twice pro- secuted by the Polica for having a disorderly house. I get for the house an advanced rent beyond the $100, which I pay in on account of Mr Rienaecker to Siemssen & Co. I have nothing whatever to do with Mr Caldwell, beyond having an office in the same building, and being on the Pay-list of his department. I have not received any permission from him to have any connection with this property. Why should I?

CHARLES MAY,-Called and examined.

I am Superintendent of Police, a Justice of the Peace, and Coroner. I wish by way of preliminary remark to state the following facts to the Commission:-I have been in the colony, and during the whole of that period

13

years

up to the apprehension of Ma-chow Wong, I was on terms of intimacy and friendship with Mr Caldwell. I had on two occasions a difference of opinion with Mr Caldwell, entirely arising out of his acquaintance with Ma-chow Wong, 1 foresaw that from the time of the apprehension of Ma-chow Wong, if interested myself in the matter, the intimacy would cease, as it subsequently did. Much of the informa- tion which I am prepared to furnish, came to my knowled- ge from the friendly terms on which we had been. The first communication I made to the Attorney General or the Government concerning Mr Caldwell, except in his defence, was subsequent to the trial of Boggs, and arose out of his de- fence. My reason for mentioning this is as a foundation for my evidence which would otherwise appear strange and paradoxical.

Of my own knowledge I know nothing of Mr Caldwell.con- nection with brothel 48 referred to in charge 2. I have re- ceived information respecting the ownership of brothel 48 from a Chinaman, who lived next door but one to that house. I do not know his name, but he kept a rice shop. 1 sent my servant to find him, and bring him up, but he is not to be found, and is reported to have left the colony. That is all that I know on the subject of charge 2. In consequence of the information I received, and of the fact that, in a book of mine, I found that Mr Caldwell appeared to be the re- gistered owner of lot 241 B, on which brothel 48 stood, I communicated to the Attorney General my belief, that that house was in fact owned by Mr Caldwell.

I have no knowledge at all on the subject of charge 5.

Of my own knowledge I know nothing on the subject of charge 14. I would suggest that Lai Sze-kai, and Ayune my servant, who can give evidence on this charge, in addi- tion to what the commission has already received, be called.

With reference to charge 15, it is within my knowledge that Mr Caldwell, at one time, and I believe up to about June 1857, was the owner of lots 241 B, 241 C, 206, 263, 264, and 242 B. To my certain knowledge on lot 206 there were at that time, and had been for two or three years pre- vious, two or three brothels. I do not know by whom kept. I know that they were brothels from my office of Assessor of Police Rates, which I formerly held, and that of Superin- tendent of Police. Mr Caldwell told me that he had re- constructed a house which he had built, partly, if not intire- ly, on lot 206, in order to afford better accommodation for a large brothel. This must have been in 1854 or 1855, before the brothel Ordinance existed. The houses on the other lots that I have mentioned were not suitable for, and were not so far as I know, brothels.

With reference to charge 16: of my own knowledge I know nothing whether Mr Caldwell has a Chinese sister- in-law or not; but I would suggest that Wong Ashun, Police Rates Shroff, who will be able to give truthful testimony, be called. I think that Assow, the interpreter at the Police Court, is able to give evidence in regard to Shaplok.

With reference to charge 17, I know nothing of my own knowledge; but suggest that a woman named Maria, living