will come
again beffore the Court at an
early day
I understand that during the interval
Chum Chin was released at Canton, but kept under
ourveillance by the Chinese authorities and re-arrested
after a few days without
of Mr Togel
any intervention
on
the part
I have the honor to be
Sir
Your most obedient Servant.
Sohm Bramston
Attorney General
No 6.
THE CHINA MAIL.
HONGKONG, TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 1875.
SUPREME COURT.
IN CHANCERY. (Before his Lordship Chief Justice Sir Jony
MALE and Mr Justice SNOWDEN.)
April 27, 1875.
AN EX PARTE MOTION FON A RULE NISI,
Chun Chew 7. Emil Vogel. Mr Havilar, Đ... in uructed by Mr R. Ja Dennys, appeured on behalf of the plain- tiff to apply for a rule nisi calling upon the defendant to show cause why he should not be restrained from having a man imprison- ed at Canton.
Mr Hayllar said he moved under Section The 18 and paragraph 2 of the Code. circumstances of the Case were very brief, The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for false imprison- He had been residing in Singapore, His Lordship asked whether he was a naturalized subject.
ment.
Mr Hayllar replied in the negative, that he should be taken as an alien for the purposes of this case. The plaintiff, as he said before, had been residing in Singapore and had lately returned on a visit to bis native place. One night his house was visited by a band of soldiers, he was arrested, put in chains and led from his village to Canton, where he was put in a criminal gaol along with thieves and malefactors, and was treated as a criminal. The reason of his imprison- ment was this. From 1871 to 1875 there was a mat shop opened in Hongkong named Tak Wo, and this firm at three different times shipped goods through Vogel, Hage- dorn & Co., of which the defendant was the aetior partner. Upon these invoices, advances were drawn, leaving a margin to cover expenses. According to the accounts of Mr Vogel, the cousignments resulted in a debt to Vogel, Hagedorn & Co. by the members of the Tak Wo shop, A claim was put in against the shop to the Chinese authorities, through the German Consul at Canton, and the man was arrested. But this man Chun Chew, who was arrested and imprisoned in gaol, had no connection whatever with the firmi from begininng to end, he was merely related to one Chun Shun, and the relationship was uncle and nephew. The object therefore of keeping this man in gaol was to compel him to pay the claim or to restrain one of the rela- tives in order to compel the debtor to settle. A petition was presented to the Government here, praying for investigation and that the case might be taken. The result of this petition would be seen from the affidavit of the Hon. C. C. Smith, which the learned counsel proceeded to read. The deponent stated that be was Acting Colonial Secretary at present, but before that he beld the office of Registrar General. That in virtue of his office he received a Chinese petition from Chun Shun and others. He then communicated with the Government, and the Government addressed a despatch to H. B.M. Consul at Canton, Sir Brooke Robertson, with the view of obtaining the release of Chun Chew, but the result of the communication was not successful; the matter being in the hands of the German Consul, Sir Brooke could not interfere. Mr Smith continued to say in his affidavit that since he had as sumed his present appointment, the de- fondant came to his office on business-
That I took the opportunity of speaking to bim concerning the arrest and detention of the said Chun Chew, and urged upon him the injustice of keeping the man in custody if, as was alleged, he did not be- long to the Tak Wo firm against whom Mr Vogel had had an alleged claim. That the said Emil Vogel did not then deny that the man was detained in custody at his instance, and he admitted that there was no evidence that the said Chun Chew was a member of the said Tak Wo firm. That
the said Emil Vogel, while making the: above admission, declined to apply through the German Consul at Canton for the said Chun Chew's release.
Mr Hayllar next read the affidavit filed by Mr t. L. Dennys, who stated that be was attorney for the plaintiff in this case. That on the 18th of February, he was in- formed by one Chun Shun, nephew of the plaintiff, that the said plaintiff was impro perly imprisoned in a gaol under the con- trol of the Namboi-magistrate at Canton in the Empire of China, the instance of the above-named defendant.
That in parau.
ance of instructions received from the said Chun Shan, the deponent on the 17th day of February wrote the following letter to the German Consul at Canton :-
1, Wyndham St., 17th Feb., 1875. C. LUEDRE, Esq,
H. I. 6. M. CONSUL,
Canton.
SIR-I have the honor to write to you in reference to a claim made by a German firm in this City against a Chinaman named Chun Shun.
Disputes having arisen between Mesars Vogel, Hagedorn and my client (Chau Shun), it appears that some time last year the interference of Mr Freusberg, then acting consul at Canton, was asked for by Mr Vogel, and in accordance with bis re- quest, a communication was made to the Ühinese officials.
Upon receipt of this communication, a warrant-copy of which I forward herewith for your perusal was issued by the Nam Hoi Magistrate for the arrest of Ohun Shun.
The said Chun Shon being a resident in this Colony, and the officers holding the warrant not being able to find him, they on the 7th February instant arrested a man named Chun Chiu alias Ping Chim, of the Kowkong village in the District of Nam Eloi.
As I am instructed, this man is the uncle of the person named in the warrant, and has had nothing whatever to do with any transactions in which Messrs Vogel, Hage- doro have been interested.
The man arrested is of advanced age, and will suffer greatly if longer subjected to the discipline of a Chinese prison.
1 have the honor therefore to request that, as the warrant was issued at the in. stigation of the acting consul, you would kindly communicate again with the Chinese officials, and if you and my statementa borne out by the facts, that you will request the discharge of the old man Chun Chíu.
My client Chun Shun is living in Flong- kong, and bas instructed me to commence proceedings against Messrs Vogel, Hagedorn & Co., unless they agree to an amicable settlement of the question between them. Instead of admitting any liability, my client as I understand, claims that Messrs Vogel, Hagedorn & Co, are indebted to him.
Apologising for the length of this letter and trusting that you will bring your in- fuence to beat in order that Justice may be done in the matter,
I have, dis.,
(Signed) B. L. DENNYS
To the above letter the following reply was received on the 18th February
"Canton, 17th February, 1875. CONSULAT DES DEUTSCHE Ruides in
Canton,
Sis,In reply to your letter of to-day,
I beg to inform you that the matter to which you refer, rests in the hands of the Chinese authorities, and that, at my regret, I am not in the position to interfere with measures which they deem fit according to Chinese laws or customs,
I have, &c., (Signed) C. LUSDER,
H. L. G. M.'s CONSUL,
H. L. DENNYS, Esq.,
Solicitor, Hongkong.'
וי
The affidavit further stated that, on the
591
Page 600Page 601
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.