>
20th of February, be (Mr Deanya) at the re- quest of Chun Shunattended on the Registrar tieneral, asking for assistance in order if pos sible to obtain the release of Chan Chew, That the Registrar General promised to at- tend to the matter and directed that a Chinese petition should be sent in representing the facts of the case, and signed by Chun Shun. That on the 22nd day of February, the said Chun Shun, together with Low Ahoi, and Sin Chat, his partners in the late Tak Wo shop, brought a petition to the deponent, who forwarded it on to the Registrar General.
The following is a translation of the patition :-
The humble petition of Chun Shan, Low A Hoi and Sia Chat, sheweth that your petitioners are now residing in Hongkong, and have been there 13, 22 and 12 years respectively.
That in 1871 and 1872 your petitioners were interested in the Tuk Wo mat shop, situated in Queen's Road, Hongkong.
That the Tak Wo shop had four transac tions with the terman firm of Vogel, Hage- dorn & Co., Hongkong, regarding matting. That altogether there were 4029 rolls of natting placed in the bands of Vogel, Hagedorn & Co. for transmission to Ame rica.
That your petitioners drew from Vogel Hagedorn about $12,000 on account of the said shipments inclusive of 6 per cent to cover insurance aud commission,
That the compradore of the said Vogel, Hagedorn & Co. told Chuz Shun one of your petitioners, in September, 1878, that the matting had been sold at a good price, and that there would be about $3,000 due to your petitioners when account sales were rendered.
That no account sales have been render- ed to your petitioners, and that about the beginning of 1874 your petitioners beard that Vogel had gone to Cunton in order to enforce a claim against your petitioners.
Yuen Wo alias Wong Yi Tak Tong, a holder of a fourth share in the Tak Wo fem, is a trader between Hongkong and Shanghai.
In consequence of the representation of the said Vogel to the Acting German Con- sul at Canton, named Freusberg, a warrant issued from the Nam Hoi Magistrate to the Magistrate at Kowkong for the arrest of your petitioners.
That on the 7th February, 1875, the Ma- gistrate at Kowkong, accompanied by some 40 or 50 police from Nam Hoi, arrested a man named Chun Chui alios Ping Chim, the uncle of your petitioner Chun Shua.
That the said Chun Chiu is about fifty years of age and has been employed for about the last five years in a chandler's shop at Singapore, and was only visiting his vil- lage at the time he was arrested.
That he was put in chains and taken to Canton, where he has been kept in gaol since. That the said Chun Chiu was never in any way interested in the Tak. Wo shop. That the younger brother of your peti- tioner, Low Aboi, was arrested at Hox Shan, but succeeded in getting away after bribing the officials sent to arrest him.
That Vogel, Hagedorn & Co. never leat any money to your petitioners, but only advanced money on shipments as mention. ! ed. As all your petitioners are residing in Hongkong, and are willing to answer any just claim of Vogel, Hagedorn & Co.'s, they pray that you will represent these facts to the Viceroy of Canton and get the uncle of the said Chun Shun released.
(Signed) by CHUN SHUN.
LOW AHOL LIN CHAO,
The Registrar General, in reply to that petition, informed the deponent that a com- munication to H.E. the Governor of Hong. kong on the subject had been made, and that a despatch had been sent to H, B. M. Consul at Canton asking him to obtain the
act lidation was lease of Chun Chew. On or about the 13th March last, under instructions from and for the carichara Chan Shun, Mr Lenuys went up to Can-
fot. hi.
ton and had a long interview with the Ger man Consul on the subject of the release of Chun Chew. The Consul admitted that the man was in prison at the instance of Mr Vogel, and stated that if he could pre- vent it, Chun Chew should not be released
antil Chun Shun had discharged a debt of over $3000 which Mr Vogel claimed to be due from the Tak Wo shop. The Con sul positively promised that, should Chun Shan pay the above sum, so claimed by the defendant, Chun Chew would be released. On the 10th April, 1875, Mr Dennys went up to Canton, and on the 11th saw Chun Chew in the King Sin Tong Gaol at Canton. This was a gaol for criminals. The plaintiff was confined in a horribly dirty cell without any bed, and in company with thieves and other malefactora, and he said that since he had been arrested he had been kept in chains a part of the time, and was treated as a criminal and not as a prisoner for debt. That he had a bad cough and suffered greatly from cold while in gaol. He distinctly averred that he had ¦ never any dealings with Mesars Vogel, Hagedorn in his life, and was quite unaware of how soconuts stood between Tak Wo and the firm ; he had no connection what- over with the Tak Wo shop.
Mr Hayllar then read the affidavits fled by Chun Shun and his partners. The pur port of them was that in May 1871 a mat- ting shop was opened under the name of Tak Wo in Queen's Road, Hongkong, the capital being subscribed in shares, one by the Sang Kee shop, one by Tak Kee, one by a man Sin Chat and one by a man Wong Yuen Wo. The partners of Sang Kee were Wai Blang and Wai Fun, and those of Tak Kes, Low Aboi and Kwok fun, Sin Chat was a cooper in the employ of Mesars Darid Sassoon, Sons & Co., and Wong Yuen Wo, a trader between Hongkong and Shanghai The Sang Kee shop closed about the middle of 1878, but deponent aontinued to be manager as long as it exist. ed Low Hol was the manager of the Tak Wo shop and is still in the Colony. During the existence of the Tak Wo shop, (closed in January 1873) matting to the value of $15,815 was placed in the defendant's Arm for consignment to America for sale, and a sum of $12,010 including insurance was advanced against the consignments, leaving a balance of $3,799.18 still due to the Tak Wo firm, and a suit bad been commenced for the recovery of the same.
The depouent further said that, in šep- tember 1878, he received a letter from the compradors of the defendant, and there- upoù he went to see him. The sompradore told him that the defendant had received za answer from America relative to the consignments, and that there was a profit of two or three thousand dollars due to the Tak Wo shop. That in May 1874 he heard that a Warrant had been issued by the Chinese authorities at the instance of the defendant for deponent's arrest in Kow- kong in China
In consequence of this news, the depon- ent, in company with Mr Wong Shing of the London Mission House, and others, went to see the defendant's compradore ; and during the interview, deponent anid: "If Tak Wo owes you money, I had a share in it; you need not go to Canton to summon me. I am living here, you can arrest me if you like. You want Chun Shun and I am here now." To this the com. pradore replied with a laugh, saying "You have money at home and build houses there." The other affidavit read was one by Mai Taz Sin, who accompanied Mr Dennys to Canton to visit Chun Chew in gaol. Chun Chew said to him that he was unlawfully detained in the gaol at the instance of the defendant, and expressed an intention of suing him for damages in the sum of $10,000.
Mr Hayllar then addressed the Court on the law of the case. In support of the question of jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the motion, he quoted the case of Bally, in LR. 202 The right of RE alien to sue for damages in an English Court for wrouge done by another alien out of jurisdiction had been settled in this case. The case of Scott v. Lord Seymour, 32 L. J. 61, was also quoted.
Mr Hayllar then handed to the Court a translation of the Peking Gazette to show the law in China on false imprisonment. Three cases were given there, and they showed that whatever the mandarins might do, such conduct was opposed to Chinese law. Mr Hayllar continued to cite cases
592
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.